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

75-46 

September 23, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(2) Plans Covered. Government Plans 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your request for our determination of the application of the government plan exclusion under

Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("the Act") to the * * * 

You indicate that the * * * is a political subdivision of California, "has taxing power and exercises this power," and,

finally, that the District is the sponsor of a plan maintained for its employees. 

Based on the above, it appears that the plan is one described in § 4021(b)(2) of the Act, and, accordingly, is

excluded from Plan Termination Insurance Coverage. 

A refund of premium payments will be made shortly. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### §1746a. Termination of commitment authority under this subchapter

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, no mortgage or loan shall be insured under any section of this subchapter after August 2, 1954 except pursuant to a commitment to insure issued on or before such date.

(June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title VI, §612, as added Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title I, §127, 68 Stat. 609.)
###### Editorial Note on Part 224

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

#### § 224.56 What is the effect of the Secretary's receipt of a qualified Tribe's complete application?

The Secretary's receipt of a qualified Tribe's complete application begins a 270-day statutorily mandated period during which the Secretary must approve or disapprove a proposed TERA. The TERA takes effect upon the 271st day after the Secretary's receipt of a complete application from a qualified Tribe, unless the Secretary approves the TERA to take effect on an earlier date, or the Secretary disapproves the application before that date.

[84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019]
#### § 9405.1 Purpose and scope.

The regulations in this part implement the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, with respect to the availability of records for inspection and copying.
### §5628. Evaluation and reports to Congress

For each fiscal year in which a program or project is carried out under this subchapter, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives containing a description of the activities funded, amounts distributed, and measurable results, as appropriate and available.

(Pub. L. 111–203, title XII, §1210, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2133.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title XII of Pub. L. 111–203, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2129, known as the Improving Access to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2010, which is classified principally to this subchapter. For complete classification of title XII to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5301 of this title and Tables.
# C_2007108EN.01001401.xml

| 12.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/14

---

Call for Proposals 2007 on ‘Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security related risks’

(2007/C 108/07)

The complete call for proposals is published on the JLS website at:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/cips/funding_cips_en.htm

Deadline for presentation of proposals: 16 July 2007.

---
# C_2006294EN.01002203.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 30 August 2006 — J.A. van der Steen v Inspector van de belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi/kantoor Utrecht

(Case C-355/06)

(2006/C 294/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J.A. van der Steen

Applicant:

Defendant: Inspector van de belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi/kantoor Utrecht

Defendant:

Question referred

Is Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that if a natural person has the sole activity of actually carrying out all work ensuing from the activities of a private limited company of which he is the sole manager, sole shareholder and sole ‘member of staff’, that work is not an economic activity because it is carried out in the course of the management and representation of the private limited company and thus not in economic dealings?

1

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1)

1

---
### §1749aaa–1. Premiums and other charges

The Secretary shall fix premium charges for the insurance of mortgages under this subchapter, but such charges shall not be more than 1 per centum per annum of the amount of the principal obligation of the mortgage outstanding at any time, without taking into account delinquent payments or prepayments. In addition to the premium charge, the Secretary is authorized to charge and collect such amounts as he may deem reasonable for the analysis of a proposed project and the appraisal and inspection of the property and improvements. Where the principal obligation of any mortgage accepted for insurance under this subchapter is paid in full prior to the maturity date, the Secretary is authorized to require the payment by the mortgagee of an adjusted premium charge. This charge shall be in such amount as the Secretary determines to be equitable, but not in excess of the aggregate amount of the premium charges that the mortgagee would otherwise have been required to pay if the mortgage had continued to be insured until the maturity date. Where such prepayment occurs, the Secretary is authorized to refund to the mortgagee for the account of the mortgagor all, or such portion as he shall determine to be equitable, of the current unearned premium charges theretofore paid. Premium charges fixed under this section shall be payable by the mortgagee either in cash, or in debentures which are the obligation of the General Insurance Fund at par plus accrued interest, at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary.

(June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title XI, §1102, as added Pub. L. 89–754, title V, §502(a), Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1275.)
#### Frank J. Imprescia *v.*State Real Estate Commission

*John F. Murphy, Jr.,*on the motion.

Argued February 5

decided February 5, 1974

The motion by John F. Murphy, Jr., to withdraw his appearance as counsel for the plaintiff in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is granted.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of PrincipalExecutive Officer**

**Requiredby Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)**

**of theExchange Act**

** **

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Advanstar Communications Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Joseph Loggia, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    | /s/ Joseph  Loggia           |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | Joseph Loggia                |
|   | Chief Executive Officer      |
|   |                         |
|   | Date: November 14, 2005 |

 

----
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

SAMUEL SOTO-CAMPOS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 23-4007 

(D.C. No. 2:20-CR-00184-DAK-1) 

(D. Utah) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before PHILLIPS, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.**

 _________________________________ 

 Defendant-Appellant Samuel Soto-Campos pled guilty to possession of 

methamphetamine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) 

(Count I), and reentry of a previously removed alien, 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (Count IV), 

and was sentenced to 132 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. 

Count I carried a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment. On appeal, 

he argues that the district court erred in not recognizing his eligibility for safety-

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 27, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 23-4007 Document: 010111022660 Date Filed: 03/27/2024 Page: 1
2 

valve relief from the mandatory minimum on Count I. Our jurisdiction arises under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and we affirm. 

The district court decided that Mr. Soto-Campos was ineligible for safety 

valve relief because he was unable to satisfy all three criminal-history requirements 

listed in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(f)(1)(A), (B), and (C).1

 We abated his appeal pending the 

Supreme Court’s resolution of Pulsifer v. United States, 601 U.S. __, 2024 WL 

1120879 (2024). The Supreme Court subsequently held that a defendant is eligible 

for safety-valve relief only if he meets all three conditions. Id. at *3. Although Mr. 

Campos could satisfy one of the conditions, specifically § 3553(f)(1)(C), he could not 

satisfy the other conditions, § 3553(f)(1)(A) and (B). Accordingly, the district court 

correctly determined that he was ineligible for the safety valve. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

1

 Mr. Soto-Campos also argued that he should have been excused from 

meeting the truthful disclosure requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) because the 

government did not provide him with intercepted phone calls and messages. The 

district court did not reach this issue. 

Appellate Case: 23-4007 Document: 010111022660 Date Filed: 03/27/2024 Page: 2
# C_2007095EN.01003402.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/34

---

Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-147/07)

(2007/C 95/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, J. Hottiaux, J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 4 of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 4 of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The quality of water intended for human consumption in France does not comply with the provisions of Directive 98/83 in so far as the thresholds laid down in that directive are regularly exceeded, as regards nitrates and pesticides, in the Deux-Sèvres, Charente-Maritime and Vendée Departments.

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32.

1

---
syn_ex105-80331.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.5

    


    The
following table provides information about Synthetech's compensation and
reimbursement practices for non-employee directors during fiscal year 2007 and
2008.

    


    NON-EMPLOYEE
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLE

    


    
      	
              Option
      grant to non-employee directors upon  initial election or
      appointment to the Board

            	
              10,000
      shares(1)

            
	
              Annual
      retainer(2)

            	
              $10,000

            
	
              Option
      grant to non-employee directors at first annual meeting after election or
      appointment

            	
              15,000
      shares(3)

            
	
              Option
      grant to non-employee directors after five years of
service

            	
              15,000
      shares(3)

            
	
              Payment
      per Board meeting

            	
              $500

            
	
              Payment
      per Audit Committee meeting

            	
              $500

            
	
              Additional
      annual retainer for Chair of the Audit Committee

            	
              $1,000

            
	
              Additional
      annual retainer for Compensation and Nominating and Governance Committee
      Members

            	
              $500

            
	
              Reimbursement
      for expenses attendant to Board membership

            	
              Yes

            
	
              Range
      of total compensation earned by directors (for fiscal 2008)(4)

            	
              $14,246
      - $17,615

            


    

    _______________________________

    
      	
              (1)

            	
              The
      options are nonqualified stock options, are granted at the market price on
      the date of grant and are fully vested on the grant date.  Mr.
      Ahrens historically has not received stock
  options.

            


    

    
      	
              (2)

            	
              Paid
      in quarterly installments of
$2,500.

            


    

    
      	
              (3)

            	
              The
      options are nonqualified stock options, are granted at the market price on
      the date of grant and vest in five equal annual installments beginning at
      the first annual shareholders meeting after the date of
      grant.  Mr. Ahrens historically has not received stock
      options.

            


    

    
      	
              (4)

            	
              Includes
      $4,115, incurred during fiscal 2008, to reimburse Mr. Ahrens for expenses
      associated with attending technical conferences on behalf of
      Synthetech.
§ 109.32 What are the coordinated party expenditure limits? ( a ) *Coordinated party expenditures in Presidential elections.* ( 1 ) The national committee of a political party may make coordinated party expenditures in connection with the general election campaign of any candidate for President of the United States affiliated with the party.
( 2 ) The coordinated party expenditures shall not exceed an amount equal to two cents multiplied by the voting age population of the United States. See 11 CFR 110.18. This limitation shall be increased in accordance with 11 CFR 110.17.
( 3 ) Any coordinated party expenditure under paragraph (a) of this section shall be in addition to— ( i ) Any expenditure by a national committee of a political party serving as the principal campaign committee of a candidate for President of the United States; and
( ii ) Any contribution by the national committee to the candidate permissible under 11 CFR 110.1 or 110.2.
( 4 ) Any coordinated party expenditures made by the national committee of a political party pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, or made by any other party committee under authority assigned by a national committee of a political party under 11 CFR 109.33, on behalf of that party's Presidential candidate shall not count against the candidate's expenditure limitations under 11 CFR 110.8.
( b ) *Coordinated party expenditures in other Federal elections.* ( 1 ) The national committee of a political party, and a State committee of a political party, including any subordinate committee of a State committee, may each make coordinated party expenditures in connection with the general election campaign of a candidate for Federal office in that State who is affiliated with the party.
( 2 ) The coordinated party expenditures shall not exceed: ( i ) In the case of a candidate for election to the office of Senator, or of Representative from a State which is entitled to only one Representative, the greater of— ( A ) Two cents multiplied by the voting age population of the State (see 11 CFR 110.18); or
( B ) Twenty thousand dollars.
( ii ) In the case of a candidate for election to the office of Representative, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner in any other State, $10,000.
( 3 ) The limitations in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be increased in accordance with 11 CFR 110.17.
( 4 ) Any coordinated party expenditure under paragraph (b) of this section shall be in addition to any contribution by a political party committee to the candidate permissible under 11 CFR 110.1 or 110.2.
### §4310. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title II, §2604(a), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–470

Section, Pub. L. 102–242, title II, §271, Dec. 19, 1991, 105 Stat. 2340; Pub. L. 102–550, title XVI, §1604(e)(2)(L)–(O), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4084, related to civil liability for depository institutions which failed to comply with any requirements of chapter or regulations with respect to account holders.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title II, §2604(a), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–470, provided that: "Effective as of the end of the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 1996], section 271 of the Truth in Savings Act (12 U.S.C. 4310) is repealed."
#### The City National Bank of Connecticut *v.*Gustaf T. Appelberg et al.

*Raymond F. Ross,*pro se, on the motion.

No appearance for the appellants (defendants Gustaf T. and Jean Appelberg).

Argued May 7

decided May 7, 1974

The motion by Raymond F. Ross, Trustee, to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is granted.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23



                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 33-80135 and Form S-8 No. 33-97566) of Applied Science and
Technology, Inc. of our report dated July 25, 1998 relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Applied Science and Technology, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
June 27, 1998 and June 28, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended June 27, 1998 which report appears in the June 27, 1998,
annual report on Form 10-K of Applied Science and Technology, Inc.



                                                     /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
September 25, 1998
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 95

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that American families

deserve tax relief.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 3, 1999

Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr.

HOSTETTLER, Mr. PAUL, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. QUINN, Mr. ROYCE, Mr.

ADERHOLT, Mr. SOUDER, Ms. GRANGER, and Mr. CUNNINGHAM) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

Ways and Means

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

American families deserve tax relief.

Whereas American families currently pay too much of their

hard-earned money in taxes;

Whereas every American will work for at least 120 days in

1999 to pay his or her share of taxes;

Whereas Americans should be allowed to keep more of their

money to invest in their children’s futures, purchase

homes, or start businesses; and

Whereas the American family will be strengthened by providing tax relief: Now, therefore, be it
2

•HRES 95 IH

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges

2 that the Congress and the President work together to

3 enact permanent tax relief for our Nation’s families.

Æ
-  Home 
-  About 
-  Organization 

# In This Section

                      -  Who We Are 
                      -  PHMSA Guidance 
                      -  Organization 
                      -  Leadership 
                      -  PHMSA FAQs 
                      -  Careers 
                      -  Working with PHMSA 

## Related Links

                  -                                          DOT Budget and Performance Documents                   
                  -                                          PHMSA Contracting Opportunities                   
                  -                                          Doing Business with PHMSA                   

## Contact Us

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

**Phone:**202-366-4433****Fax:**202-366-3666**

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

# Office of the Chief Financial Officer

## About the Office

The Mission of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer is to provide exceptional budget, financial, information technology and acquisition support services to the agency.

## Office of the Chief Financial Officer Divisions

### Acquisition Services

The Acquisition Services Division provides full procurement support and financial assistance business processes. The Division is responsible for guidance and oversight of acquisition policy, award, and administration of PHMSA’s business arrangements.

### Budget and Finance

The Budget and Finance Division supports PHMSA's mission and operations by promoting good fiscal management over financial resources PHMSA administers.  This includes budget formulation, budget execution, accounting, financial reporting, and audit. 

### Information Resources

The Information Resources Division provides data and information technology services to support the agency’s safety mission through reliable, secure, and integrated technology solutions.

## Management

**Chief Financial Officer**Jon Gatti

**Acquisition Services Director**Loni Chinn

**Budget and Finance Director **Michael Reles

**Chief Information Officer**Mark Kyriss