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.

#### § 900.9 May the Secretary require an Indian tribe or tribal organization to submit any other information beyond that identified in § 900.8?

No.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-114 

October 1, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4043(b)(2) Reportable Events. Amendment Decreasing Benefits 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter dated * * * concerning the applicability of Section 4043(b)(2) of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act") to the adoption of an amendment to a covered plan under which the

life insurance benefit under the plan is eliminated. 

As I understand the facts, the employer maintains a covered plan which currently is funded by a group whole life

insurance policy and an unallocated group pension contract. The employer intends to amend the plan so as to eliminate

the death benefits provided under the life insurance policy. Life insurance would continue to be provided to plan

participants under a separate group life insurance policy. 

In your opinion, the term "benefit payable" in Section 4043(b)(2) should be construed to mean retirement and

disability benefits but not life insurance benefits. We disagree. In our opinion, the elimination of the death benefit under

the plan as a result of a plan amendment is a reportable event under Section 4043(b)(2) of the Act. 

Section 4043(b)(2) provides: 

For purposes of this section a reportable event occurs . . . when an amendment [*2] of the plan is adopted if under

the amendment, the benefit payable with respect to any participant may be decreased. (Emphasis added.) 

There is no reason to believe that Congress intended the term "benefit payable" in Section 4043(b)(2) not to include

life insurance benefits. In view of the fact that Title IV is replete with distinctions among classes of benefits, (e.g., basic

and non-basic benefits, accrued and vested benefits, disability and retirement benefits) we believe that had Congress

intended to exempt life insurance benefits from Section 4043(b)(2) it would have specifically done so. 

Additionally, we believe that our interpretation of Section 4043(b)(2) is consistent with the purpose of the reporting

requirements of Section 4043 -- to require plan administrators to notify the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the

"PBGC") of the occurrence of certain events which indicate a "possible danger of plan termination" and which might

necessitate close supervision of or termination of a covered plan in order to protect plan participants and the PBGC. See

H. Conf. Rep. N. 93-1280, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. 373 (1974). The elimination of a pension plan's life insurance [*3]

benefit, in some circumstances, may be as indicative of the "possible danger of plan termination" as the elimination of

a retirement or disability benefit. However, in view of the fact that some benefit reductions may be more indicative of

a need to terminate a pension plan than others, we anticipate providing in whatever "reportable events regulation" we

ultimately adopt for a waiver of some reporting obligations. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
§ 29.7 Safeguarding of PCII. ( a ) *Safeguarding.* All persons granted access to PCII are responsible for safeguarding such information in their possession or control. PCII must be protected at all times by appropriate storage and handling. Each person who works with PCII is personally responsible for taking proper precautions to ensure that unauthorized persons do not gain access to it.
( b ) *Background checks on persons with access to PCII.* For those who require access to PCII, CISA will, to the extent practicable and consistent with the purposes of the CII Act, undertake appropriate background checks to ensure that individuals with access to PCII do not pose a threat to national security. These checks may also be waived in exigent circumstances.
( c ) *Use and storage.* When PCII is in the physical possession of a person, reasonable steps must be taken, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the PCII Program Manager, to minimize the risk of access to PCII by unauthorized persons. When PCII is not in the physical possession of a person, it must be stored in a secure environment.
( d ) *Reproduction.* Pursuant to procedures prescribed by the PCII Program Manager, a document or other material containing PCII may be reproduced to the extent necessary and consistent with the need to carry out official duties, provided that the reproduced documents or material are marked and protected in the same manner as the original documents or material.
( e ) *Disposal of information.* Documents and material containing PCII may be disposed of by any method that prevents unauthorized retrieval, such as shredding or incineration.
( f ) *Transmission of information.* PCII will be transmitted only by secure means of delivery as determined by the PCII Program Manager, and in conformance with appropriate federal standards.
( g ) *Automated Information Systems.* The PCII Program Manager will establish security requirements designed to protect information to the maximum extent practicable, and consistent with the CII Act, for Automated Information Systems that contain PCII. Such security requirements will be in conformance with the information technology security requirements in the Federal Information Security Management Act and the Office of Management and Budget's implementing policies.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
        
<ARTICLE>					5        
       				        
<S>						<C>        
<PERIOD-TYPE>				6-MOS        
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>			Dec-31-1997        
<PERIOD-START>				Jan-01-1997        
<PERIOD-END>				Jun-30-1997        
<CASH>					$11,000        
<SECURITIES>				0        
<RECEIVABLES>				997,000        
<ALLOWANCES>				153,000        
<INVENTORY>				1,316,000        
<CURRENT-ASSETS>			2,308,000        
<PP&E>					1,467,000        
<DEPRECIATION>				785,000        
<TOTAL-ASSETS>				3,028,000        
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>			7,656,000        
<BONDS>					0        
<COMMON>					235,000        
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>		1,770,000        
<PREFERRED>				0        
<OTHER-SE>					(6,633,000)        
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>	3,028,000        
<SALES>					4,421,000        
<TOTAL-REVENUES>			4,421,000        
<CGS>				            2,885,000        
<TOTAL-COSTS>				2,885,000        
<OTHER-EXPENSES>			0        
<LOSS-PROVISION>			0        
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>			280,000        
<INCOME-PRETAX>			(440,000)        
<INCOME-TAX>				(22,000)        
<INCOME-CONTINUING>			(418,000)        
<DISCONTINUED>				0	        
<EXTRAORDINARY>			0        
<CHANGES>					0        
<NET-INCOME>				(418,000)        
<EPS-PRIMARY>				(.20)        
<EPS-DILUTED>				0        
                
        

</TABLE>
#### JONES v. DAVIS

No. 38P90

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 679

Petition by Davis for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 April 1990.
<PAGE>
STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
REGARDING FORM 10-Q FOR QUARTER ENDING
MARCH 31, 2003, PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

EXHIBIT 99.1

      I, Nello Gonfiantini III, Chairman of the Board, President and Secretary
of Specialty Trust, Inc. (the Company), hereby state, certify and attest in this
written statement that:

      (a) The quarterly report of the Company filed on form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (b) The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Nello Gonfiantini III                        Dated this 14th of May, 2003
--------------------------------------------
Name:    Nello Gonfiantini III
Title :  Chairman of the Board, President
         and Secretary
        (Chief Executive Officer)

This certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46155

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

RACHELL LYNN RUDOLPH ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: April 10, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Peter G. Barton , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years with a one and one

half

- year determinate term for possession of methamphetamine, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenevieve C. Swinford

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney Gener al; Kenneth K. Jorgensen , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;

and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Rachell L. Rudolph pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine , Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(c)

. Prior to sentencing, Rudolph was cha rged with committing additional crimes in

violation of the plea agreement. The district court imposed a unified seven

- year sentence with a

one and one

- half

- year determinate term

. Rudolph appeals, contending that her sentence is

excessive.

Sentencin g is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 1 8, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed t he record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Rudolph ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
§ 700.705 Objectives. It is the purpose of the regulations in this part to aid the Navajo Indians in achievement of the following objectives: ( a ) The preservation of the forage, the land, and the water resources on the New Lands.
( b ) The resettlement of Navajo Indians physically residing on the HPL to the New Lands.
§ 171.310 Can I use water delivered by BIA for livestock purposes? Yes, if we determine it will not: ( a ) Interfere with the operation, maintenance, or rehabilitation of our facilities;
( b ) Be detrimental to or jeopardize our facilities;
( c ) Adversely affect the water rights or water supply; or
( d ) Cause additional costs to us that we do not agree to in writing.
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 900.24 Can a contract proposal for an Indian tribe or tribal organization's share of administrative programs, functions, services, and activities be declined for any reason other than the five reasons specified in § 900.22?

No. The Secretary may only decline a proposal based upon one or more of the five reasons listed above. If a contract affects the preexisting level of services to any other tribe, the Secretary shall address that effect in the Secretary's annual report to Congress under section 106(c)(6) of the Act.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

77-127 

February 4, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4062(a) Liability of Employer in Single Employer Plans. Applicability 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of * * * and subsequent phone conversation with * * * of my staff, concerning

employer liability upon any ultimate termination of * * * (the "Plan"). 

As I understand the pertinent facts, your client, * * *, has, over the past several years, entered into contracts to

provide labor services for the operation of the * * * Under the terms of these contracts, the employees at the * * * are

employed by the contractor which provides the labor services. Each new contractor continues to use the same employees

of the predecessor contractor, and thus even though the "employer" changes, the labor force which is covered by the Plan

substantially remains the same. 

You asked whether the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "Corporation") would look to your client, * *

* for employer liability under § 4062 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act"), rather than

to the current contractor, should * * * become a successor employer prior to the termination of the Plan. 

Under § 4062(a) of the Act, liability to the Corporation for an "insufficient" plan is imposed upon [*2] "any

employer who maintained a plan . . . at the time it was terminated" (emphasis added). Consequently, if * * * or any other

financially sound company maintains the plan on its date of termination and makes payment to the Corporation in

satisfaction of any employer liability under § 4062(b)(1) of the Act, the Corporation would have no interest in looking

back toward a predecessor employer for any such liability. 

 I hope this response is helpful to you. Should you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or

* * * 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
# C_2007042EN.01000101.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/1

---

(2007/C 42/01)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 20, 27.1.2007

OJ C 20, 27.1.2007

Past publications

OJ C 331, 30.12.2006

OJ C 326, 30.12.2006

OJ C 310, 16.12.2006

OJ C 294, 2.12.2006

OJ C 281, 18.11.2006

OJ C 261, 28.10.2006

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications.  Archivedcopies of publications are retrieved in the event that publications are nolonger available from the original publishing agency site. (Historicalpurposes)
**Title:****Activities report**** 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.3199/3:
Item Number:0507-G-60 (online)
CGP SystemNumber:000776688
 
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
 
March3, 2020**
## Breadcrumb

-  Inicio 
-  Información Para Comenzar A Recibir Su Beneficio 

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

# Información para Comenzar a Recibir Su Beneficio

##### **Primeros pasos para comenzar a recibir su beneficio**

                                - Como Contactar a PBGC Sobre Pensiones No Reclamadas
                                - Información para Personas que Aún No Esten Recibiendo Beneficios
                                - Cómo Conseguir la Estimación de un Beneficio de Pensión de PBGC
                                - Como Solicitar sus Beneficios de Pensión  
                                - Información para Designar un Beneficiario

##### **Aprenda más sobre los beneficios de pensión**

                                - Información sobre Beneficios, Pagos, Beneficiarios, y Apelaciones
                                - Información sobre sus Opciones de Beneficio de PBGC
                                - ¿Que es una Anualidad? ¿Que es una Cantidad Total?
                                - Tabla de Garantías Mensuales Máximas  
                                - Publicación de EBSA (DOL) sobre pensiones (Enlance externo del Departamento de Trabajo)  

Junio 13, 2022

Déjenos sus comentarios
#### § 700.93 Relocation plan.

The relocation plan shall be the plan prepared by the Commission and submitted to Congress pursuant to section 13(c) of the Act.
#### § 36.80 If a school or dormitory has separated boys' and girls' homeliving programs, may the same behavioral professional be used for each program?

Yes, a program may use the same behavioral professional for both boys' and girls' programs. However, behavioral health staffing requirements are based on the combined enrollment during the homeliving count period.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

85-15 

May 31, 1985 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4204 Sale of Assets

4212(c) Obligation to Contribute - Liability 

OPINION: 

This responds to your request for the PBGC's opinion concerning Section 4204 of ERISA. Specifically you wish

to know whether Section 4212(c) applies to a transaction involving a sale by an employer of an unincorporated division

under Section 4204 when the sole purpose of applying Section 4204 is to avoid the seller's immediate withdrawal

liability. Similarily, you wish to know whether Section 4212(c) applies if the division is first incorporated and then its

stock is sold. In other words, can a plan disregard these transactions and impose liability on the seller because the sale

violates the "principal purpose" rule of Section 4212(c)? 

Section 4212(c) provides that "[i]f a principal purpose of any transaction is to evade or avoid liability under this part,

this part shall be applied (and liability shall be determined and collected), without regard to such transaction." Section

4204, on the other hand, provides a statutory exception to the general rule that an employer is liable if it ceases to

contribute to a multiemployer pension plan. The purpose of Congress in providing Section 4204 was to allow an

employer to [*2] avoid liability if a sales transaction meets the statutory conditions. Thus, the application of Section

4204 to a sales transaction does not by itself violate Section 4212(c). A plan, however, may find under all the

circumstances of the transaction that Section 4212(c) was violated. A dispute in such a case would be subject to the

dispute resolution procedures of Sections 4219 and 4221. 

Likewise, as PBGC Opinion Letter 82-4 explains, the sale of the stock of a subsidiary is permitted without liability

being incurred under the Act. Thus, if a division of a corporation is first incorporated and then sold, the transaction does

not automatically violate 4212(c). However, as explained above, Section 4212(c) may be applied by a plan, if all the

circumstances of the transaction so warrant, to disregard the transaction. 

I hope this has been of assistance to you. If you have further questions concerning this matter, please contact * *

* of my staff at the above address or (202) 254-4873. 

Edward R. Mackiewicz 

General Counsel
#### § 41.13 For what activities can financial assistance to Tribal colleges and universities be used?

Tribal colleges and universities may use financial assistance under this subpart to defray expenditures for academic, educational, and administrative purposes and for the operation and maintenance of the college or university.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00219

- CV

Emily YOUNG and Albert Morrison,

Appellants

v.

Eldon ROALSON , Roalson Interests, Inc.; Douglas Miller II; and Jim Guy Egbert,

Appellees

From the 454th Judicial District Court

, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17

- 09

- 24412

- CV

Honorable Daniel J. Kindred , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE WATKINS

, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. We order

appellants to pay the costs of this appeal.

SIGNED August 25, 2021.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,

AEROVIAS de MEXICO, S.A. de C.V. AEROLITORAL, S.A. de C.V.

for statements of authorization under 14 C.F.R. Part 212 (blanket behind-gateway U.S.-Mexico codesharing) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Dockets OST-1997-3289

OST-2001-10833

30-DAY NOTICE REGARDING

ADDITIONAL CODESHARING POINTS

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

John R. Mietus, Jr. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MIETUS, LLC 6701 Democracy Boulevard Ste 300 Bethesda, Maryland 20817 (202) 747-5212 john@mietuslaw.com
Counsel for AEROVIAS de MEXICO, S.A.

de C.V. and AEROLITORAL, S.A. de C.V. Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director – Government Affairs

& Associate General Counsel DELTA AIR LINES, INC.
1212 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-4184 sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

August 9, 2012BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,

AEROVIAS de MEXICO, S.A. de C.V. AEROLITORAL, S.A. de C.V.

for statements of authorization under 14 C.F.R. Part 212 (blanket behind-gateway U.S.-Mexico codesharing) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Dockets OST-1997-3289

OST-2001-10833

30-DAY NOTICE REGARDING

ADDITIONAL CODESHARING POINTS

Pursuant to the blanket statements of aut horization granted to Delta Air Lines, Inc.

(“Delta”), Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“A eromexico”), and Aerolitoral, S.A. de C.V. d/b/a

Aeromexico Connect (“Aerolitoral”) for behind gateway intra-Mexico codesharing in Dockets OST1997-3289 and OST-2001-10833, the carriers hereby notify the Department of their intent to

display Delta’s “DL*” designator code on flight s operated by Aeromexico and/or Aerolitoral

between Delta’s authorized gateways in Mexico and the following new points:

Saltillo, México (SLW) Ciudad del Carmen, México (CME)
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.158 How does an Indian tribe or tribal organization appeal the initial decision, if it does not request an informal conference or if it does not agree with the recommended decision resulting from the informal conference? ( a ) If the Indian tribe or tribal organization decides to appeal, it shall file a notice of appeal with the IBIA within 30 days of receiving either the initial decision or the recommended decision.
( b ) The Indian tribe or tribal organization may either hand-deliver the notice of appeal to the IBIA, or mail it by certified mail, return receipt requested. If the Indian tribe or tribal organization mails the Notice of Appeal, it will be considered filed on the date the Indian tribe or tribal organization mailed it by certified mail. The Indian tribe or tribal organization should mail the notice of appeal to: Board of Indian Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior, 801 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22203.
( c ) The Notice of Appeal shall: ( 1 ) Briefly state why the Indian tribe or tribal organization thinks the initial decision is wrong;
( 2 ) Briefly identify the issues involved in the appeal; and
( 3 ) State whether the Indian tribe or tribal organization wants a hearing on the record, or whether the Indian tribe or tribal organization wants to waive its right to a hearing.
( d ) The Indian tribe or tribal organization shall serve a copy of the notice of appeal upon the official whose decision it is appealing. The Indian tribe or tribal organization shall certify to the IBIA that it has done so.
( e ) The authorized representative of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the authorized representative of the Secretary of the Interior will be considered a party to all appeals filed with the IBIA under the Act.