alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 169.414 May BIA take emergency action if Indian land is threatened? ( a ) We may take appropriate emergency action if there is a natural disaster or if an individual or entity causes or threatens to cause immediate and significant harm to Indian land or BIA land. Emergency action may include judicial action seeking immediate cessation of the activity resulting in or threatening the harm.
( b ) We will make reasonable efforts to notify the individual Indian landowners before and after taking emergency action on Indian land. In all cases, we will notify the Indian landowners after taking emergency action on Indian land. We will provide written notification of our action to the Indian tribe exercising jurisdiction over the Indian land before and after taking emergency action on Indian land.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

86-25 

November 12, 1986 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041(c)(2) Termination by Plan Administrator. (SEPPAA) Distress Termination

4041(c)(2)(B) Termination by Plan Administrator. (SEPPAA) Distress Criteria

PBGC Interim Procedures on Plan Terminations. 

OPINION: 

This is in response to your letter regarding the Bankruptcy Court's denial of * * * Corporation's * * * motion for

approval of termination of the Pension Agreement Between * * * Company, a Division of * * * Corporation, and * * *

on Behalf of Local * * * (the "Plan"). 

In order to effect a distress termination under section 4041(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of

1974, amended by the Single Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-272, 100 Stat. 237

(1986) ("ERISA"), a plan administrator must provide 60 day advance notice of intent to terminate to affected parties.

Then, as soon as practicable after the date on which the notice of intent to terminate is provided, the plan administrator

must submit to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC"), certain information, including information that will

enable PBGC to determine whether one of the three distress criteria under section 4041(c)(2)(B) has been met. Upon

receiving that information, PBGC [*2] determines whether one of the distress criteria has been met. 

Here, * * * has not yet submitted to PBGC any information under section 4041(c)(2). The Bankruptcy Court's order

denying * * *'s motion for approval of Plan termination does not preclude subsequent approval by the Bankruptcy Court

upon submission of further facts by * * *. Moreover, even if * * *'s motion for approval to terminate the Plan were

denied by the Bankruptcy Court with prejudice, * * * could attempt to meet the distress criterion in section

4041(c)(2)(B)(iii). PBGC does not believe that the "as soon as practicable" time limitation for submission of distress

termination information has expired. Consequently, PBGC is not in a position to determine whether * * * has met any

of the criteria for a distress termination of the Plan. Until such time as PBGC makes such a determination or * * * fails

to make a timely submission under 4041(c)(2), ERISA requires that * * * pay benefits in accordance with section

4041(c)(3)(D). This provision and PBGC Interim Procedures on Plan Terminations under SEPPAA require the plan

administrator to: (1) refrain from distributing assets or taking any other actions to carry out [*3] the proposed

termination; (2) pay benefits attributable to employer contributions, other than death benefits, only in the form of an

annuity; (3) refrain from using plan assets to purchase irrevocable commitments from an insurer; and (4) pay,

commencing on the proposed date of termination, only benefits guaranteed under section 4022 or to which assets would

be allocated under section 4044 in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 2623. 

Edward R. Mackiewicz 

General Counsel
# C_2006297EN.01004901.xml

| 7.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/49

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4428 — AXA/Gerflor)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 297/16)

On 15 November 2006, 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 32006M4428. 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 32006M4428. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PETERSON PAUL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-3131

[July 28, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Lawrence Michael 

Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562004CF002449A.

Peterson Paul, Century, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, DAMOORGIAN, and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
| 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirement 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      as of and for the period covered by theReport. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  February      6, 2009 | /s/ Ramsey K. Hamadi                                 |   |
|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   | Name:      Ramsey K. Hamadi                          |   |
|                                   | Title:   Chief      Financial Officer |   |

----
#### Christopher McCrary et al., Appellants, v Monique Street et al., Respondents.

[825 NYS2d 514]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated May 27, 2005, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Christopher McCrary did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

*769Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the injured plaintiff, Christopher McCrary, did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The affirmed medical report of the defendants’ examining neurologist noted that there was a limitation in the range of motion of the injured plaintiffs neck “on turning,” but did not sufficiently quantify the limitation to establish that it was insignificant *(see Whittaker v Webster Trucking Corp.,*33 AD3d 613 [2006]; *Connors v Flaherty,*32 AD3d 891 [2006]; *Cassandra v Dumond,*31 AD3d 476 [2006]; *Kaminsky v Waldner,*19 AD3d 370 [2005]). Furthermore, the examining neurologist merely stated that the range of motion of the injured plaintiffs neck was otherwise “full in all planes,” without setting forth the objective test or tests performed to support this conclusion *(see Whittaker v Webster Trucking Corp., supra; Murdakhayeva v Blackstone Limo, Inc.,*32 AD3d 1002 [2006]; *Russo v Ross,*32 AD3d 386 [2006]; *Ilardo v New York City Tr. Auth.,*28 AD3d 610 [2006]). Since the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the papers submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Whittaker v Webster Trucking Corp., supra; Connors v Flaherty, supra; Cassandra v Dumond, supra; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 900.168 Will an appeal hurt the Indian tribe or tribal organization's position in other contract negotiations?

No. A pending appeal will not affect or prevent the negotiation or award of another contract.
# C_2006326EN.01002402.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin lodged on 24 February 2006 — Irene Werich v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

(Case C-111/06)

(2006/C 326/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Irene Werich

Applicant:

Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

Defendant:

Question referred

Is the provision in point (1) of Annex VI. D. (formerly C.) Germany to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (Regulation No 1408/71) compatible with higher-ranking European law, in particular the principle of freedom of movement and the principle of the exportability of benefits under Article 42 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty), inasmuch as it also rules out pension benefits in respect of contribution periods for which compulsory contributions were paid under the insurance legislation of the German Reich?

1

---

(1)  OJ English Special Edition, Series I Chapter 1971(II) p. 416.

1

---
# C_2006310EN.01000502.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 28 September 2006 — Quelle AG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände

(Case C-404/06)

(2006/C 310/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant, appellant and respondent: Quelle AG

Defendant, appellant and respondent:

Plaintiff, respondent and appellant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherbände

Plaintiff, respondent and appellant:

Question referred

Are the provisions of Article 3(2) in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) and Article 3(4), or of the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where consumer goods are brought into conformity with the contract by means of delivery of replacement goods, the seller may require compensation from the consumer for use of the goods originally delivered, which were not in conformity with the contract?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of River Holding Corp.
("Holding") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Charles A. French, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Holding, certify, to my knowledge, that:

         1.       The Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.

                                        /s/ Charles French
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Charles A. French
                                        Chief Executive Officer and President
                                        November 14, 2003
Exhibit 32.1


                           1st NET TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of 1st Net Technologies, Inc., Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, James H. Watson,  Jr.,
Principal  Executive Officer and Principal  Accounting Officer of the Registrant
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.

Date: August 19, 2003

/s/ James H. Watson, Jr.
-----------------------------------------
James H. Watson, Jr.
Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of the Registrant
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as added by

Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Pulaski Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ramsey K. Hamadi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                |  | 
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------ |  | 
|Date: May 12, 2008 |  | /s/ Ramsey K. Hamadi          
|                   |  | Name: Ramsey K. Hamadi        
|                   |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer
### [§2332. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §812(a)(3)(A), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1847]

Section, added Pub. L. 107–347, title II, §210(a)(1), Dec. 17, 2002, 116 Stat. 2932, related to the authority of a agency head to enter into share-in-savings contracts for information technology.
### §§1023b to 1027. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.26(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 624

Section 1023b, act July 26, 1956, ch. 741, title II, §201(b), 70 Stat. 667, provided for utilization of funds for administrative expenses of intermediate credit banks.

Section 1024, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title II, §201(d), as added Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title I, §2, 42 Stat. 1454, authorized intermediate credit banks to serve as fiscal agents for the United States.

Section 1025, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title II, §201(e), as added Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title I, §2, 42 Stat. 1454; amended Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933; Aug. 18, 1959, Pub. L. 86–168, title I, §104(h), 73 Stat. 387, covered insolvency and receivership of intermediate credit banks.

Section 1026, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title II, §201(f), as added Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title I, §2, 42 Stat. 1454; amended Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933, provided for grant of charters to intermediate credit banks upon application in form prescribed by Farm Credit Administration.

Section 1027, act July 26, 1956, ch. 741, title I, §101(a) to (c), 70 Stat. 659, covered merger of production credit corporations in Federal intermediate credit banks.

Section 1027 note, act July 26, 1956, ch. 741, §2, 70 Stat. 659, set out a Congressional declaration of policy to be followed in construing provisions of act July 26, 1956.
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.105 Who takes title to excess or surplus Federal property donated to an Indian tribe or tribal organization? ( a ) Title to any donated excess or surplus Federal personal property shall vest in the Indian tribe or tribal organization upon taking possession.
( b ) Legal title to donated excess or surplus Federal real property shall vest in the Indian tribe or tribal organization upon acceptance by the Indian tribe or tribal organization of a proper deed of conveyance.
( c ) If the donation of excess or surplus Federal real property includes land owned by the United States but not held in trust for an Indian tribe, the Indian tribe or tribal organization shall specify whether it wants to acquire fee title to the land or whether it wants the land to be held in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe. ( 1 ) If the Indian tribe or tribal organization requests fee title, the Secretary shall take the necessary action under Federal law and regulations to transfer fee title to the Indian tribe or tribal organization.
( 2 ) If the Indian tribe or tribal organization requests beneficial ownership with fee title to be held by the United States in trust for an Indian tribe: ( i ) The Indian tribe or tribal organization shall submit with its request a resolution of support from the governing body of the Indian tribe in which the beneficial ownership is to be registered.
( ii ) If the donation request of the Indian tribe or tribal organization is submitted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, that Secretary shall take all necessary steps to acquire the land and transfer it to the Secretary of the Interior and shall also forward the Indian tribe or tribal organization's request and the Indian tribe's resolution.
( iii ) The Secretary of the Interior shall expeditiously process all requests in accord with applicable Federal law and regulations.
( iv ) The Secretary shall not require submission of any information other than that required by Federal law and regulation.
### [§2338. Renumbered §3573]
4- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation p-wuc 1200 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-4026 

1 pPm COW AVAILABLE NOV 18 2002 

Re: Appeal YL Peter J. Schmitt Employees 

Retirement Plan (the 'tPlan") 

Deceased Participant 71 

Dear 71 

The Appeals Board has reviewed your appeal, on behalf of your 

late husband, 1 of PBGC's July 30, 2001 

determination that he was not entitled to a benefit under the Plan. 

As explained below, the Appeals Board changed PBGC's determination 

by finding that I was employed with Peter J. 

Schmitt Company, Inc. ["PJS") or a related company for six full 

years, and therefore, he was entitled to a vested benefit under the 

Plan. 

PBGC's Determination and Your A~peal 

PBGC determined that because I did not have at least 

five years of service when he stopped working for PJS, he was not 

entitled to a vested pension benefit. The letter explained that 

the Plan provisions in effect when ended his 

employment required five years of service in order to qualify for 

a vested pension benefit. 

Your September 1, ZOO1 appeal challenged your late husband's 

determination, and said that he was employed by PJS from 1982 to 

the later part of 1988. You mentioned that PJS employed him at 

more than one location. 

Discussion 

The Appeals Board reviewed 1 earnings record from 

the Social Security Administration ("SSA") for the years 1982 

through 1988. The SSA earnings data shows that he was employed by 

PJS or an affiliated company from 1982 through 1988. This is the 

same time frame you referenced in your appeal. Based on this data 

and the Plan's vesting requirements in effect when 71 
ended his employment, the ~ppeals Board determined that 71 

had at least six full years of vesting service when he ended his 

employment with companies related to PJS. Therefore, 71 

was entitled to a vested pension benefit under the Plan. 

Because your husband died before he started receiving his 

benefit, as his surviving spouse, you are entitled to receive a 

qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity, which is equal to the 

survivor portion of a Joint and 50% Survivor Annuity ("J&SO%SA"). 

This means you are entitled to receive 50% of the amount your 

husband would have received if he started receiving his 'benefit 

payable as a J&SO%SA before he died. 

Decision 

Having applied the provisions of the Plan to the facts in this 

case, the Appeals Board found that the latewas 

entitled to a vested pension benefit under the Plan. 

PBGC's Insurance Operations Department will send you a new 

benefit determination regarding the amount of your vested survivor 

benefit and when you may start receiving it. Your new 

determination will have a 45-day appeal right. Meanwhile, if you 

have any additional questions, please contact PBGC's Customer 

Service Center at 1-800-400-7242. 

Sincerely, 

Michel Louis 

Appeals Board Member