alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

77-172

Withdrawn on April 19, 2013
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

77-172 

December 23, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

[*1] 4021(a)(1) Plans Covered. Tax Qualification in Practice 

4021(a)(2) Plans Covered. Tax Qualification by IRS Determination 

OPINION: 

 This responds to your request for a determination by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") 

whether defined benefit pension plans established and maintained in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are subject to 

the provisions of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act"). 

Section 4021(a)(1) of the Act provides for mandatory plan termination insurance coverage for certain defined benefit 

pension plans which, in practice, have met the requirements of § 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (the 

"Code") for five years preceding termination. The PBGC does not consider the requirement of Code § 401(a) that the 

trust * * * under the plan be "created or organized in the United States" to be a bar to Title IV coverage under § 

4021(a)(1) of the Act provided the plan has in practice otherwise met the tax qualification requirements of the Code. 

Title IV coverage of Puerto Rican plans is not conditioned upon an election pursuant to § 1022(i)(2) of the Act. 

Consequently, where a Puerto Rican plan with a non-United States [*2] trust otherwise has in practice met the tax 

qualification requirements of the Code for the required period, and is not a plan described in § 4021(b) of the Act, it is 

subject to Title IV coverage. 

Section 4021(a)(2) provides for Title IV coverage of non-trusteed plans which are funded by annuity contracts where 

a plan meets, or the Secretary of the Treasury has determined that a plan meets, the requirements of § 404(a)(2) of the 

Code. PBGC has determined that where a non-trusteed defined benefit annuity plan maintained by a Puerto Rican 

employer meets, or has been determined by the Secretary of the * * * Treasury to meet, the requirements of Code § 

404(a)(2) and the plan is not a plan described in § 4021(b) of the Act, it is subject to Title IV coverage. 

We hope this has been of assistance. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
IV

House Calendar No. 318

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 647

[Report No. 106–999]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 4811) making appropriations for foreign operations, export

financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September

30, 2001, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 24, 2000

Mr. DIAZ-BALART, 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. 4811) making appropriations

for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001,

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. 4811) making appropriations for

4 foreign operations, export financing, and related programs
2

HRES 647 RH

1 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for

2 other purposes. All points of order against the conference

3 report and against its consideration are waived. The con4 ference report shall be considered as read.

House Calendar No. 318

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 647

[Report No. 106–999]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4811) making

appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal yearending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

OCTOBER 24, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
#### § 571.14 Relationship of financial statements to fee assessment reports.

A tribe shall reconcile its Commission fee assessment reports, submitted under 25 CFR part 514, with its audited or reviewed financial statements for each location and make available such reconciliation upon request by the Commission's authorized representative.

[74 FR 36940, July 27, 2009]
### Limitation of Court Decisions
# 2010 50 50 Healthy
# C_2006178EN.01002901.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/29

---

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 5 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — SABA Italia SpA v Comune di Bolzano and SEAB SpA

(Case C-216/04) (1)

1

(2006/C 178/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 24.7.2004.

1

---
#### § 63.32 Under what authority are Indian child protection and family violence prevention program funds awarded?

The Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts with Indian tribes, tribal organizations, or tribal consortia pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 450 *et seq.*, for the development and establishment of Indian child protection and family violence prevention programs. This includes compacting with tribes under the Self-Governance program procedures.
§ 290.20 When will the ABO disapprove a tribal revenue allocation plan? The ABO will not approve any tribal revenue allocation plan for distribution of net gaming revenues from a tribal gaming activity if: ( a ) The tribal revenue allocation plan is inadequate, particularly with respect to the requirements in § 290.12 and IGRA, and you fail to bring it into compliance;
( b ) The tribal revenue allocation plan is not adopted in accordance with applicable tribal law;
( c ) The tribal revenue allocation plan does not include a reasonable justification for limiting per capita payments to certain groups of members; or
( d ) The tribal revenue allocation plan violates the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, any other provision of Federal law, or the United States' trust obligations.
### §705a. Rest and recuperation absence: certain members undergoing extended deployment to a combat zone

(a) Rest and Recuperation Authorized.—Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary concerned may provide a member of the armed forces described in subsection (b) the benefits described in subsection (c).

(b) Covered Members.—A member of the armed forces described in this subsection is any member who—

(1) is assigned or deployed for at least 270 days in an area or location—

(A) that is designated by the President as a combat zone; and

(B) in which hardship duty pay is authorized to be paid under section 305 or 352(a) of title 37; and

(2) meets such other criteria as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe in the regulations required by subsection (a).

(c) Benefits.—The benefits described in this subsection are the following:

(1) A period of rest and recuperation absence for not more than 15 days.

(2) Round-trip transportation at Government expense from the area or location in which the member is serving in connection with the exercise of the period of rest and recuperation.

(d) Construction With Other Leave.—Any benefits provided a member under this section are in addition to any other leave or absence to which the member may be entitled.

(Added Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title V, §532(a), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4216; amended Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title VI, §618(e), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1426.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2017—Subsec. (b)(1)(B). Pub. L. 115–91 inserted "or 352(a)" after "section 305".
### §8214. Enlisted members: authority for transfer between Marine Corps and Hospital Corps of the Navy

Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, enlisted members of the Marine Corps are eligible for transfer to the Hospital Corps of the Navy, and enlisted members of the Hospital Corps are eligible for transfer to the Marine Corps.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 375, §6014; renumbered §8214, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(b)(7), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1834.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6014 | 34 U.S.C. 34 (proviso of 2d sentence). | Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 417 (proviso of 2d sentence in 1st paragraph under "Hospital Corps"), 39 Stat. 572; Aug. 4, 1947, ch. 459, §301(a), 61 Stat. 738. |
| | 34 U.S.C. 34a. | Aug. 4, 1947, ch. 459, §302, 61 Stat. 738. |

The authority to transfer Navy personnel to the Hospital Corps and personnel of that Corps to other branches or designations in the Navy is omitted as unnecessary because transfers within the Navy are permitted under provisions which authorize the Secretary of the Navy to establish grades and ratings (34 U.S.C. 176) and to administer the Department (5 U.S.C. 171a(c)).

The saving provision of 34 U.S.C. 34a which provided that no person would suffer any reduction in grade, rating, or pay, is omitted as executed. It pertained to personnel who, when the Hospital Corps was reorganized under the Act of August 4, 1947, ch. 459, §§301, 302, 61 Stat. 738, were in grades and ratings prescribed by prior laws.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 8214, acts Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 501; Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–861, §1(159), 72 Stat. 1514, prescribed authorized strength of Regular Air Force in enlisted members on active duty, exclusive of officer candidates and aviation cadets, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–513, title II, §202, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2878, effective Sept. 15, 1981.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6014 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA CASENO. DA 22-0731 TCF ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a MALMQUIST CONSTRUCTION and CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiffs/Appellees.

vs. RAMES, INC. formerly d/b/a CENTRAL INSURANCE AGENCY,

Defendant/Appellant. 

# FILED JUN 0 12023 EICAN1311 Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana

ORDER Upon consideration ofAppellees' Unopposed Motion forExtension ofTime, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellees are granted an extension oftime to and includingJuly 3, 2023, within which to prepare, file and serve their response brief.

1 06/01/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0731
#### Thomas Padfield v. William R. Padfield.

Admissions *in answer in chancery—how far conclusive.*Where tlie material allegations in a hill in chancery are admitted in the answer of the defendant, and the court decrees accordingly, the decree will not he reversed.

*167Writ op Error to the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon-. Joseph Gillespie, Judge, presiding.

Mr. B. B. Smith, for the plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Ease & Wilderman, for the defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in chancery, to correct a mistake in a deed, in which all the material facts alleged in the bill are admitted in the sworn answer of the plaintiff in error, and the court decreed accordingly.

We do not perceive any grounds for reversing the decree, as none of the facts are controverted, and it must be affirmed.

*Decree*affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. FERNANDO SANDOVAL

- GARCIA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 10231
D. C. No. 4:16

- cr - 02040

- CKJ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 15 , 201 8 **
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Fernando Sandoval

- Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 20

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 1 291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 17 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 10231

Sandoval

- Garcia contends that the district court erred procedurally by varying upward without sufficiently explaining its reasons for doing so . We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The district court noted Sandoval

- Garcia’s two prior felonies and concluded that the sentencing factors, including deterrence and promotion of respect for the law, warranted a variance

. 1
Sandoval

- Garcia also c ontends that his above

- Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. He argues that the district court’s upward variance was improper because it rested in part on a 2007 sexual

- assault conviction, the details of which he alleges were insufficiently e stablished by available documentation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Sandoval

- Garcia ’s sentence. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 3 8, 51 (2007)

. The district court focused on the fact of the sexual

- assault conviction itself, and discounted the importance of the particular details that Sandoval

- Garcia alleges were inadequately documented. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances , including Sandoval

- Garcia’s criminal history

. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

1 We do not reach Sandoval

- Garcia’s argument that the district court did not provide sufficient grounds to support an upward departure because the record shows that the district court instead imposed a variance.
# C_2006326EN.01001101.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2006. — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-198/05) (1)

1

(Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/100/EEC - Rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property - Public lending right - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 326/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and L. Pignataro, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: M Braguglia, Agent, and M. Massella Ducci Teri, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61) — Derogation from the exclusive right in respect of public lending — Scope

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by exempting from the public lending right all categories of lending establishment accessible to the public within the meaning of Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by exempting from the public lending right all categories of lending establishment accessible to the public within the meaning of Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that Directive.

.

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.

1

---
§ 513.6 What are the requirements for offset review? ( a ) The Commission will provide the debtor with a reasonable opportunity for an oral hearing when the debtor requests reconsideration of the debt and the Commission determines that the question of indebtedness cannot be resolved by review of the documentary evidence.
( b ) Unless otherwise required by law, an oral hearing is not required to be a formal evidentiary hearing, although the Commission will carefully document all significant matters discussed at the hearing.
( c ) When an oral hearing is not required, the Commission will review the request for reconsideration based on the written record.
`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 353 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 145
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 353

                          [Report No. 106-438]

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 2, 1999

    Mr. Dreier, 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 motions to suspend the rules.

    Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on or before the 
legislative day of Wednesday, November 10, 1999, for the Speaker to 
entertain motions to suspend the rules, provided that the object of any 
such motion is announced from the floor at least two hours before the 
motion is offered. In scheduling the consideration of legislation under 
this authority, the Speaker or his designee shall consult with the 
Minority Leader or his designee.




                                                 House Calendar No. 145

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 353

                          [Report No. 106-438]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 2, 1999

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
CORBETT PRICE LAW.

612 SPRUCE STREET

SCRANTON, PA 18503

Joeprice@CorbettPricelaw.com

570-955-7418

RE: Exemption Request Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of 2012 

 

Dear Sir or Madam:

We represent Kapeesh Enterprises, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company doing business as Access 

Aerial (“Access Aerial”). We are writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and the 

procedures contained in 14 C.F.R 11, to request that Access Aerial, an owner and operator of Small Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems, be exempted from the Federal Aviation Regulations listed below so that Access Aerial may operate its small, 

lightweight Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”) commercially in airspace regulated by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (“FAA”).

Founded by John Culkin of Scranton, PA and Lee DeAngelis of Jessup, PA, Access Aerial has become the 

Northeastern Pennsylvania’s leaders in capturing high definition aerial imagery through the use of its UASs. Mr. Culkin 

and Mr. DeAngelis have logged hundreds of flight hours over the past two (2) years with their DJI Phantom UASs, 

always ensuring that flights are conducted in a safe manner and in accordance with the FAA guidelines. Access Aerial 

has been a leading advocate for the safe and proper use of UASs by hobbyists. Through their videos posted to many 

social media outlets such as YouTube and Facebook, Access Aerial has garnered the attention of several print and 

television news sources and has utilized each opportunity to promote and stress the importance of hobbyists using their 

UASs in accordance with FAA regulations. 

To this date, Access Aerial has refused a multitude of advances made by area businesses and individuals alike to 

use their aerial imagery capabilities for commercial purposes. Based primarily in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Access Aerial 

now seeks permission to fly its UASs commercially in the United States to capture aerial imagery for local Northeastern 

Pennsylvania Businesses and First Responders. Northeastern Pennsylvania is in dire need of an influx of business. 

Access Aerial seeks to use its expertise in the area of aerial imagery capturing to bring this much needed new business to 

the local area. Granting Access Aerial’s exemption will be granting Northeastern Pennsylvania the right to believe 

that there is hope on the horizon in the form of a modernization of business practices.

Respectfully Submitted,

_________________________

Joseph Gardner Price, Esq.

Corbett Price Law

612 Spruce St.

Scranton, PA 18503

Attorney ID 317300
§ 170.704 What happens when the review process identifies areas for improvement? When the review process identifies areas for improvement: ( a ) The Tribe or regional office must develop a corrective action plan within 60 days;
( b ) BIADOT and FHWA review and approve the plan;
( c ) FHWA may provide technical assistance during the development and implementation of the plan; and
( d ) The reviewed Tribe or BIA regional office implements the plan and reports either annually or biennially to BIADOT and FHWA on implementation.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of RailWorks Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John
Polatz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.


                                          /s/ John Polatz
                                        -----------------------
                                              John Polatz
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                            August 19, 2002
#### § 542.5 How do these regulations affect state jurisdiction?

Nothing in this part shall be construed to grant to a state jurisdiction in class II gaming or extend a state's jurisdiction in class III gaming.
#### In the Matter of the Final Judicial Settlement of Account of Proceedings of George W. Russell and Frederick T. Russell, as Executors, etc., of William F. Russell, Deceased, Appellants. Irving Russell and Others, Respondents.

Decree unanimously affirmed,.with costs.• No opinion.