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.

#### § 900.111 What activities of construction programs are contractible?

The Secretary shall, upon the request of any Indian tribe or tribal organization authorized by tribal resolution, enter into a self-determination contract to plan, conduct, and administer construction programs or portions thereof.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

77-131 

February 11, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4067 Arrangements for Payment of Employer Liability

4062 Liability of Employer in Single Employer Plans 

OPINION: 

 This has reference to your letter of * * * concerning the above-mentioned plan (the "Plan"). Your letter was in

response to our letter of * * * rejecting your proposal of * * * on behalf of * * * (the "Company"), for payment of its

employer liability of * * * plus any outstanding liability of the Plan for services rendered thereto. 

You inquire what criteria the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") applies in making arrangements,

pursuant to Section 4067 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act"), for the deferred payment

of employer liability arising under Section 4062 of the Act. 

It is the position of the PBGC that we will exercise our authority under Section 4067 of the Act in appropriate cases.

Employer liability payment terms are arranged on a case by case basis after liability is asserted under Section 4062 of

the Act. We will allow deferred payments only where a showing is made of hardship or necessity that, in our judgment,

make it equitable and appropriate. We regard such deferred payments as a limited accommodation to an employer [*2]

whose circumstances are such as would make immediate payment a hardship and whose borrowing capacity through

ordinary commercial channels is not adequate to finance the liability. 

 Moreover, as we have previously indicated to you, interest at an appropriate rate will be charged on the outstanding

principal amount of the liability. 

Our present policy with respect to both immediate and deferred payment of employer liability arising under Section

4062 is to accept payment only in the form of cash. 

If you can provide us with financial information concerning the Company and all trades or businesses (whether or

not incorporated) under the same common control, as defined in 26 CFR Part 2612, 41 FR 12302 (March 25, 1976), with

the Company, which could document the Company's hardship or necessity for deferred payments, we would review any

such documentation. We also would be pleased to dicuss with you any such documentation we would need. Please

contact * * * to arrange for a meeting to discuss our payment term criteria, specific payment terms, hardship

documentation and any other matters you may wish to raise at this time. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-119 

November 15, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4044(d)(1) Allocation of Assets. Distribution of Residual Assets to Employer 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your request that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") reconsider its

determination that the * * * (the "Plan") does not provide for the return of residual Plan assets to the * * * (the

"Company"). In this regard, you indicated that a * * * "fair" reading of Article IV, paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 of the Plan

satisfies the requirements in section 4044(d)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act")

and that, therefore, residual Plan assets should be returned to the Company. 

Section 4044(d)(1)(C) of the Act provides that upon a plan's termination, the residual assets of a plan may be

distributed to the employer maintaining the plan "if the plan provides for such a distribution in these circumstances."

(Emphasis added.) Although Article IV, paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 may authorize the return of excess contributions to the

Company while the Plan is ongoing, it appears that Article XI, * * * paragraph 4 of the Plan supercedes those provisions

in the event of the Plan's termination. As you are aware, that paragraph provides, inter Alia, that: [*2] 

"In the event of termination of this Agreement, . . . the Company may terminate the Plan . . . provided, however, that

no such action shall operate to recapture for the Company any contributions or payments previously made to the Fund

. . ." (Emphasis added.) 

 In light of the foregoing, it does not appear that there are grounds for the PBGC to alter its determination that the

Plan does not provide for a return of residual Plan assets to the Company. Accordingly, all Plan assets must be

distributed to Plan participants and their beneficiaries, pro rata, in relation to their accrued benefits. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
#### § 216.12 Consultation.

A superintendent shall consult with the Indian landowner with respect to actions he proposes to take under §§ 216.4, 216.6, 216.7, 216.9, and 216.10.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

Appellate case name: In re Jeffrey Wayne Blackburn

, Relator

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 6 27

- CV

Trial court case number: 201 7

- 80 112

Trial court: 1 13 t h District Court o f Harris County

On August 20, 2019, r elator, Jeffrey Wayne Blackburn, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the respondent trial judge’s two orders issued on July 1, 2019,

g rant ing the plaintiff s Belinda Lamonto and Linda Bendickson ’s m otion s to s trike the

c ounter

- affidavit s of Bradley K. Weiner, M.D. Although r elator ha s included the required Rule 52.3(j) certification with the petition and two volumes of an appendix , there are no reporter’s records of any motion hearings, if any, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.7(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court ORDER S the relator, within 3 days of the date of this order

, to file a statement that no relevant testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained of in this petition or else provide evidence of requesting the reporter’s records

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52. 7(a)(2), (b)

.

With his petition, relator filed an “Motion for Emergency Stay” seeking to stay the trial setting for September 9, 2019, pending disposition of this petition. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.10(a). The Court denies the relator’s motion for emergency stay.

T he Court requests a response to the petition for writ of mandamus by any real party

in interest. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b)(1). The response, if any, shall be filed within 2 0 days from the date of this order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2, 52.4.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Laura C. Higley

___  Acting individually  Acting for the Court
Date: __ August 21, 2019

____________________
### [§2434. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title VIII, §842(c)(1), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2290]

Section, added Pub. L. 98–94, title XII, §1203(a)(1), Sept. 24, 1983, 97 Stat. 682, §139c; renumbered §2434 and amended Pub. L. 99–433, title I, §§101(a)(5), 110(d)(15), (g)(9), Oct. 1, 1986, 100 Stat. 995, 1003, 1004; Pub. L. 99–661, div. A, title XII, §1208(a)–(c)(1), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3975; Pub. L. 100–26, §7(b)(5), Apr. 21, 1987, 101 Stat. 279; Pub. L. 100–180, div. A, title XIII, §1314(a)(1), Dec. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 1175; Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title V, §525, Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 1975; Pub. L. 102–190, div. A, title VIII, §801(a), (b)(1), Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1412; Pub. L. 103–355, title III, §3004, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3330; Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title VIII, §814, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 395; Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title VIII, §821(a), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1181; Pub. L. 111–23, title I, §101(d)(5), May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1710; Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title VIII, §814(e), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4267; Pub. L. 114–92, div. A, title VIII, §831(a)–(c)(1), Nov. 25, 2015, 129 Stat. 912, related to independent cost estimates.
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, 2018

**

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 jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 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, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 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 contends 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 established 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. 38, 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.
#### § 584.11 Will the hearing be transcribed?

Yes. Hearings under this part that involve oral presentations shall be recorded verbatim and transcripts thereof shall be provided to parties upon request. Each party shall pay its own fees for transcripts.
#### § 39.133 Who decides how Language Development funds can be used?

Tribal governing bodies or local school boards decide how their funds for Language Development programs will be used in the instructional program to meet the needs of their students.
# C_2006326EN.01008302.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/83

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 November 2006 — Villa and Others v Parliament

(Case F-4/06) (1)

1

(Pension - Transfer of pension rights - Calculation of the premium already obtained)

(2006/C 326/168)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Renata Villa (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: G. Bouneou, F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J.F. De Wachter and M. Mustapha-Pacha, Agents)

Defendant:

:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions of 8 February 2005 whereby the appointing authority of the European Parliament refuses to reimburse the applicants the excess premium, resulting from the difference between the rights acquired during the years of when they were affiliated to the Italian scheme and the number of annuities transferred to the Community scheme following a new calculation of the transfer of their pension rights.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.03.2006, p. 34.

1

---
-  Home 
-  PHMSA Forms 

# In This Section

                      -  Pipeline Compliance Forms 

## Contact Us

Office of Pipeline Safety
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**phmsa.pipelinesafety@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4595****Fax:**202-366-4566****Business Hours:**9:00am-5:00pm ET, M-F

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Pipeline Compliance Forms

#### GD-SMS-2022 Voluntary Adoption of American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1173 for Gas Distribution Systems

Form and Instructions

#### Operator Reports Submitted to PHMSA - Forms and Instructions

Annual Reports, Incident and Accident Reports, National Registry Notifications, and OpID Assignment Request

#### Drug and Alcohol Forms

Inspection Forms

Reporting Forms

#### Pipeline Inspection Forms
|  |
|--|

| Home> Electricity> Electric Utility Demand Side Management                                                                                                                                                                             |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **Electric Utility Demand Side Management   -  Archive**                                                                |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                                                                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                 |  |  |
| /s/ Zachary C. ParkerZachary C. ParkerChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |   |   |
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.152 How does an Indian tribe or tribal organization know where and when to file its appeal from decisions made by agencies of DOI or DHHS?

Every decision in any of the ten areas listed above shall contain information which shall tell the Indian tribe or tribal organization where and when to file the Indian tribe or tribal organization's appeal. Each decision shall include the following statement:

Within 30 days of the receipt of this decision, you may request an informal conference under 25 CFR 900.154, or appeal this decision under 25 CFR 900.158 to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA). Should you decide to appeal this decision, you may request a hearing on the record. An appeal to the IBIA under 25 CFR 900.158 shall be filed with the IBIA by certified mail or by hand delivery at the following address: Board of Indian Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior, 801 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22203. You shall serve copies of your Notice of Appeal on the Secretary and on the official whose decision is being appealed. You shall certify to the IBIA that you have served these copies.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

# AGENCY:

National Endowment for the Arts.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), the National Endowment for the Arts is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of its FY 2010 Service Contract inventory. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were made in FY 2010. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the Agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at                         *http://www.whitehouse.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​omb/​procurement/​memo/​service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf.*                         The National Endowment for the Arts has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory on its Web site at the following link:                         *http://www.arts.gov/​about/​Commercial/​index.html.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Ned Read in the Office of the Deputy Chairman for Management and Budget at 202-682-5782 or                         *readn@arts.gov.*

 Dated: February 23, 2011.

Kathy Plowitz-Worden,

Office of Guidelines and Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.

[FR Doc. 2011-4342 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1021

To provide for the settlement of claims of the Menominee Indian Tribe

of Wisconsin.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 12, 1999

Mr. KOHL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for the settlement of claims of the Menominee

Indian Tribe of Wisconsin.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT.

4 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the Me5 nominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, out of any funds in

6 the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appro7 priated, $32,052,547 for damages sustained by the Me8 nominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin by reason of—

9 (1) the enactment and implementation of the

10 Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for a per capita dis-
2

•S 1021 IS

1 tribution of Menominee tribal funds and authorize

2 the withdrawal of the Menominee Tribe from Fed3 eral jurisdiction’’, approved June 17, 1954 (68 Stat.

4 250 et seq., chapter 303); and

5 (2) the mismanagement by the United States of

6 assets of the Menominee Indian Tribe held in trust

7 by the United States before April 30, 1961, the ef8 fective date of termination of Federal supervision of

9 the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin.

10 SEC. 2. EFFECT OF PAYMENT.

11 Payment of the amount referred to in section 1 shall

12 be in full satisfaction of any claims that the Menominee

13 Indian Tribe of Wisconsin may have against the United

14 States with respect to the damages referred to in that sec15 tion.

16 SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR PAYMENT.

17 The payment to the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis18 consin under section 1 shall—

19 (1) have the status of a judgment of the United

20 States Court of Federal Claims for the purposes of

21 the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribu22 tion Act (25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.); and

23 (2) be made in accordance with the require24 ments of that Act on the condition that after pay-
3

•S 1021 IS

1 ment of attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, of

2 the remaining amount—

3 (A) not less than 30 percent shall be dis4 tributed on a per capita basis; and

5 (B) not more than 70 percent shall be set

6 aside and programmed to serve tribal needs,

7 including—

8 (i) educational, economic development,

9 and health care programs; and

10 (ii) such other programs as the cir11 cumstances of the Menominee Indian Tribe

12 of Wisconsin may justify.

Æ
#### § 558.6 Compliance with this part.

All tribal gaming ordinances and ordinance amendments that have been approved by the Chair prior to September 14, 2023, and that reference this part do not need to be amended to comply with this section. All future ordinance submissions, however, must comply.

[88 FR 55371, Aug. 15, 2023]
EXHIBIT 16.1

Date: April 11, 2017



U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Office of the Chief Accountant

100 F Street NE

Washington, DC 20549



Re: Delta Technology Holdings Limited



Ladies and Gentlemen:



We have read the statements under Item 16F in the Amendment
No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F dated March 23, 2017 of Delta Technology Holdings Limited (the “Company”) to
be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and we agree with such statements therein as related to our firm. We have
no basis to, and therefore, do not agree or disagree with the other statements made by the Company in the Amendment No. 1 to the
Annual Report on Form 20-F.



Very Truly Yours,





| | 
| | 



Centurion ZD CPA Ltd. (fka DCAW (CPA) Ltd. as successor to Dominic
K.F. Chan & Co.)

Certified Public Accountants

Hong Kong, April 11, 2017
# C_2007024EN.01000102.xml

| 2.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4323 — ARLA/Ingman Foods)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 24/02)

On 15 January 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4323. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4323. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---