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

75-120 

June 12, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4023(d) Contingent Liability Coverage. Eligibility for Coverage

4023(e) Contingent Liability Coverage. Purchase of Insurance from Private Insurers 

OPINION: 

 This is response to your letter of May 1, 1975 regarding a contingent liability insurance program. Preliminary

discusssions are being conducted to ascertain whether or not private insurance companies would be willing to participate

in a contingent liability program. At this time, however, there has been no positive indication by any individual insurance

company of a willingness to participate in such a program. 

It should be noted that Section 4023(e) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act")

provides: 

"Nothing in this Section precludes the purchase by the employer of insurance from any other person, or limits the

circumstances under which that insurance is payable, or in any way limits the terms and conditions of such insurance,

except that the corporation may prescribe as a condition precedent of the purchase of such insurance the payment of a

reinsurance premium or other reasonable fee . . ." 

Thus, nothing precludes an employer from immediately negotiating such coverage with a private carrier. However,

[*2] until the PBGC establishes a contingent liability insurance program it will be impossible to determine whether any

coverage so purchased meets all the requirements of such a program. 

Once the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") establishes a contingent liability program it is precluded

from making any payments under such program unless such insurance has been in effect for 60 months. This 60-month

requirement as set forth in Section 4023(d) of the Act appears to apply only to contingent liability insurance provided

by the PBGC; it would not apply to coverage purchased by the employer from any other person, nor does it apply to basic

benefit insurance currently being purchased from the PBGC. 

I hope this information proves helpful to you. 

Steven E. Schanes 

Acting Executive Director
#### Bruria Giladi, Appellant, v City of New York, Defendant, and New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

[826 NYS2d 328]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated February 22, 2006, which granted the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority, in effect, to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint and to compel her to accept its untimely answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the defendant), in effect, to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept its answer, which was untimely served. The defendant’s delay in answering was brief, the default was not willful, there exists a potentially meritorious defense, and there was no evidence of prejudice to the plaintiff *(see Bunch v Dollar Budget, Inc.,*12 AD3d 391 [2004]; *Orwell Bldg. Corp. v Bessaha,*5 AD3d 573 [2004]; *Sippin v Gallardo,*287 AD2d 703 [2001]). Furthermore, public policy favors the resolution of cases on the merits *(see Bunch v Dollar Budget, supra).*Adams, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### § 115.62 Protection duties.

If an agency employee or facility staff member has a reasonable belief that a detainee is subject to a substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse, he or she shall take immediate action to protect the detainee.
-  Home 

# Notice of Enforcement Discretion for the Transportation of Over-Pressurized Cylinders

PHMSA Notice of Enforcement Discretion for Over-Pressurized Cylinders.pdf (190.33 KB)

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is providing notice that it will not take enforcement action against trained collecting personnel who transport the below-specified over-pressurized cylinders for the purpose of venting and condemnation.

See the Enforcement Discretion for complete details.

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

FRANK GREENE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellant,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 522, 2017

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. N15C-03-052

§

§

§

§

§

Submitted: April 13, 2018

 Decided: June 14, 2018

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.

O R D E R

This 14th day of June 2018, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs 

and the record on appeal, the Court concludes that the judgment below should be 

affirmed on the basis of and for reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its wellreasoned order dated November 9, 2017. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice
§ 169.211 What is the approval process for a mortgage of a right-of-way? ( a ) When we receive a right-of-way mortgage for our approval, we will notify the grantee of the date we receive it. We have 30 days from receipt of the executed mortgage, proof of required consents, and required documentation to approve or disapprove the mortgage. Our determination whether to approve the mortgage will be in writing and will state the basis for our approval or disapproval.
( b ) If we do not meet the deadline in this section, the grantee or Indian landowners may take appropriate action under § 169.304.
#### McLaughlin v. Martin

No. 492P89

Case below: 95 N.C.App. 782

Petition by defendant (IRFFNC) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 18 January 1990.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-38 

July 28, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4082(b). Effective Date; Special Rules. Applicability of Title IV to Plan Terminations Occurring Between July

1, 1974 and September 2, 1974 

OPINION: 

 Your letter addressed to the Department of Labor attaching * * * inquiry regarding termination of the * * * Racine

facility has been forwarded to this agency for response. 

As you know, the Racine facility was permanently closed in October 1974. The facility's * * * Pension Fund had

been terminated during August of that year. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "Corporation") has carefully

considered the circumstances surrounding * * * decision to terminate the Pension Plan at that time and has concluded

that Congress did not authorize it to guarantee pension benefits under the circumstances of this case. 

Pursuant to § 4082(b) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-406), the Corporation may

not pay benefits guaranteed under Title IV for plans terminating between June 30, 1974 and September 2, 1974 unless

the Corporation determines on the basis of substantial evidence "that the plan was terminated for a reasonable business

purpose and not . . . for the purpose of avoiding the liability which might be imposed [*2] under Subtitle D if the plan

terminated on or after the date of enactment of this Act." 29 U.S.C. § 1381, 83 Stat. 1034 (1974). The Corporation has

found that the record does not support such a determination. 

In a letter dated auguest 23, 1974 from the company's Director of Industrial Relations to the Union's Business Agent,

* * * itself explained its decision to terminate the pension plan in August: 

 As you are aware, Congress is considering and apparently will soon pass the Employee * * * Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974. This Act would impose certain liabilities in connection with pension plans which are not presently

required by law, nor provided by our plan. 

To preserve the status quo with respect to the current legal obligations and liabilities of the parties applicable to our

pension plan, the company deemed it necessary and has taken the appropriate action to terminate such plan. (Letter from

* * *, * * * to * * * of the 

In litigation now pending before the U.S. District Court, the Union alleges that the company's termination of the *

* * Pension Plan in August, 1974 was improper. While the Court's decision on the issue of the Plan's termination date

would not, [*3] of course, be decisive for purposes of our Act, its finding and the particular relief granted by the Court

would create new circumstances relevant to the Corporation's overall assessment of the Plan's status. Consequently, the

Corporation would be willing to reconsider the case upon timely request after the pending litigation has been finally

resolved. 

With best wishes. 

Steven E. Schanes 

Acting Executive Director
# C_2006281EN.01000101.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/1

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova — Italy) — Cristiano Marrosu, Gianluca Sardino v Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate

(Case C-53/04) (1)

1

(Directive 1999/70/EC - Clauses 1(b) and 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work - Establishment of employment relationships of indefinite duration resulting from infringement of the rules governing successive fixed-term contracts - Possible derogation in respect of employment contracts in the public sector)

(2006/C 281/01)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Cristiano Marrosu, Gianluca Sardino

Applicants:

Defendant: Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate

Defendant:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Genova — Interpretation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Establishment of an employment relationship of indefinite duration in the case where the rules governing successive fixed-term contracts have been infringed — Possibility of derogation in the case of employment contracts signed with public authorities

Operative part of the judgment

The framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not in principle precluding national legislation which, where there is abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships by a public-sector employer, precludes their being converted into contracts of indeterminate duration, even though such conversion is provided for in respect of employment contracts and relationships with a private-sector employer, where that legislation includes another effective measure to prevent and, where relevant, punish the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts by a public-sector employer.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 3.4.2004.

1

---
fzmd-ex101_101.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

November 8, 2021

 

 

Mr. Bill McLaughlin

 

Fuse Medical, Inc.

1565 N Central Expy Ste. 200 Richardson, TX

 

Re:Fuse Medical, Inc. Loan Agreement

 

Dear Mr. McLaughlin,

 

Fuse Medical, Inc. is in default of the above-referenced indebtedness pursuant to the terms of the Note and other documents evidencing, securing or pertaining to the indebtedness. The default arose from non-compliance with the minimum trailing twelve-month EBITDA covenant for the period ending 9/30/2021.

 

These violations constitute an Event of Default (as defined in the Loan Agreement) under the Loan Agreement (the “Default”).

 

This letter constitutes notice by the Bank to Fuse Medical, Inc. that the Bank has waived the aforementioned defaults for 9/30/2021. This letter does not constitute a waiver of any default or Event of Default under the Loan Agreement except for the Default(s) described in the preceding paragraphs, or an agreement to waive any future defaults or Events of Default under the Loan Agreement, and no such inference, assumption, or course of dealing shall be created hereby. The Bank expressly reserves any and all rights and remedies under the Notes, the Loan Agreement, and all other documents executed in connection therewith, at law and in equity.

 

In addition, the Bank is process of extending maturity to 2/4/2022 subject to approval and execution of all documents by Borrower and Bank

 


	
	
Sincerely,

	
 

	


	
Nicholas J. Diaz

	
Executive Vice President

	
Amegy Bank
Editorial Note on Part 23
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 23 appear at 79 FR 27190, May 13, 2014.

§ 23.125 How is consent obtained? ( a ) A parent's or Indian custodian's consent to a voluntary termination of parental rights or to a foster-care, preadoptive, or adoptive placement must be executed in writing and recorded before a court of competent jurisdiction.
( b ) Prior to accepting the consent, the court must explain to the parent or Indian custodian: ( 1 ) The terms and consequences of the consent in detail; and
( 2 ) The following limitations, applicable to the type of child-custody proceeding for which consent is given, on withdrawal of consent: ( i ) For consent to foster-care placement, the parent or Indian custodian may withdraw consent for any reason, at any time, and have the child returned; or
( ii ) For consent to termination of parental rights, the parent or Indian custodian may withdraw consent for any reason, at any time prior to the entry of the final decree of termination and have the child returned; or
( iii ) For consent to an adoptive placement, the parent or Indian custodian may withdraw consent for any reason, at any time prior to the entry of the final decree of adoption, and have the child returned.
( c ) The court must certify that the terms and consequences of the consent were explained on the record in detail in English (or the language of the parent or Indian custodian, if English is not the primary language) and were fully understood by the parent or Indian custodian.
( d ) Where confidentiality is requested or indicated, execution of consent need not be made in a session of court open to the public but still must be made before a court of competent jurisdiction in compliance with this section.
( e ) A consent given prior to, or within 10 days after, the birth of an Indian child is not valid.
AAM-12-184-E 

February 2, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10441 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0074 

Mr. Nathan Kayes 

Managing Member 

Due North Aviation, LLC 

3380 Old Columbus Road NW 

Carroll, OH 43112 

Dear Mr. Kayes: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter submitted January 19, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Due North Aviation, LLC (Due North) for an exemption from §§ 120.117 

and 120.225 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to 

allow Due North, which is operating under separate parts of 14 CFR, to cover its safetysensitive employees under one testing program. The FAA finds that you require relief from 

part 120 of 14 CFR. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Due North. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 
2 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Due North Aviation, LLC an exemption from part 120 to 

the extent necessary to allow Due North, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Due North are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Due North part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on February 28, 2014 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
### §1131g–1. Repealed. July 26, 1956, ch. 741, title I, §105(q), 70 Stat. 666

Section, act June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title VIII, §86a, as added June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title V, §504, 48 Stat. 1263, which was formerly designated section 1131gg of this title, authorized production credit associations to make loans to farmers for home alterations, repairs and improvements without purchase of class B stock, and permitted associations to sell, discount, assign, or otherwise dispose of such loans.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 1174

_____________________________
J ACQUELINE M ICHELLE L ONG , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Devin Collier , Judge

. May 10, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R OWE , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kevin P. Steiger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6526

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GERALD DAVID DAVAGE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CR-94-41-PJM, CA-00-750-JFM)

Submitted: June 20, 2000 Decided: July 10, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald David Davage, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan Edwin Foreman, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerald D. Davage appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his independent action to set aside the judgement in Davage’s

previous 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion to vacate. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Davage, Nos. CR-94-41-

PJM; CA-00-750-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 27, 2000). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Pentagon Force Protection Agency

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Our Agency    -  Leadership      -  Chris Bargery             
    -  Lewis Ratchford Jr             
    -  Shelley A Verdejo             
    -  Dr. James A. Day             
    -  Woodrow G. Kusse 
  -  Publications             
  -  Our Mission, Vision & Values             
  -  History             
  -  PFPA Intranet (PFPA Only)             
  -  PFPA Extranet (CAC Only) 
-  Topics    -  Visiting the Pentagon             
  -  CAC Issuance             
  -  Parking Information             
  -  Flags Over Pentagon             
  -  Vehicle Towing             
  -  Reporting Suspicious Activity             
  -  Lost & Found 
-  Careers		 
-  Contact		 

HomeCareersJob Fairs

What to bring:

When attending a Job Fair please remember to bring these essential items which will allows us to expedite your application.
                          - State issued ID
                          - Professional Resume
                          - Copy of any supporting documentation

Questions on upcomingjob fairs?

Contact one of our Recruiters:

Phone:703-571-8000

Email:PFPA.RECRUITMENT@MAIL.MIL

 
Facebook

----

 

**HOME /  PRIVACY ACT  /   NO FEAR ACT /   ACCESSIBILITY  /  FOIA  /  QUICK LINKSPFPA Extranet (CAC Only)   /   PFPA Intranet (PFPA Only)**

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil