alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Appeals Board 

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

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Appeals Board

**The PBGC Appeals Board's Purpose and Procedures**

PBGC created the Appeals Board so that persons who are adversely affected by PBGC’s determinations may tell PBGC the specific reasons why they think the determination is wrong so that PBGC can correct any errors. The Appeals Board, however, cannot provide relief based on hardship or a belief that PBGC’s determination is unfair.  An Appeals Board decision is the final step in PBGC’s administrative review process.

While the overwhelming majority of Appeals Board decisions involve benefit claims by participants and beneficiaries, the Appeals Board also decides appeals concerning: (1) determinations that a pension plan is **not** covered by PBGC under section 4021 of ERISA; (2) determinations of the amount of liability owed to PBGC by plan sponsors and controlled group members under sections 4062(b), 4063 and 4064 of ERISA; and (3) any other matters specifically referred to it when PBGC determines it is appropriate to do so, See 29 CFR § 4003.1. Updates to 29 CFR § 4003.1 can also be found at 77 Fed. Reg. 22488; 82 Fed. Reg. 60800, 60818; and 85 Fed. Reg. 10279.

An affected party may file an appeal after PBGC issues its formal determination. The appeal, or a request for additional time to file an appeal, must be filed within 45 days from the date of the formal determination letter. The formal determination explains the right to appeal, and it should include a copy of following publication:Your Right to Appeal [PDF] Your Right to Appeal [Text]

You will find additional information about filing an appeal, including where to send an appeal or extension request, through the above link to "Your Right to Appeal." Additional information about the appeals process can be found in our Appeals Board FAQ.

Please note that a person affected by PBGC's determination may act on his or her own behalf, or may designate a representative. If the representative is not an attorney, however, the Appeals Board must receive a notarized power of attorney that specifically states the scope of the representative's authority.

PBGC's "Rules for Administrative Review of Agency Decisions" describe the procedures that apply to the Appeals Board. The Rules are found in Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 4003.

More information regarding the right to appeal benefit determinations is available on the Appealing Formal Determinations page.

February 26, 2021

##           Related Resources      

Benefit Determination Appeal Forms

Appeals Board FAQ

Appeals Board Decisions
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Subsidiaries of Registrant**

 

HInnovation Inc.,a Minnesota corporation

 

Subsidiary of HInnovation Inc.:

 

Vital Images (Beijing) Science and Technology, Inc.,incorporated under the laws of the People’s Republic of China

 

Vital ImagesHolding B.V., incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands

 

Subsidiaries of Vital Images Holding B.V.:

 

Vital Images Europe B.V.

Vital Images France Sarl

Vital Images Scandinavia AS

Vital Images Italy Srl

Vital Images Germany Gmbh

 

----
-  Home 
-  Hazmat 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Standards & Rulemaking Overview 
                      -  International Program Overview 
                      -  PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR) 
                      -  Rulemakings                          -  Overview 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemakings 
                        -  Archived Hazardous Materials Rulemakings (pre-1995) 
                      -  Petitions for Rulemaking 
                      -  Interpretations 
                      -  Regulations 
                      -  Preemption Determinations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Inconsistency Rulings 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
                      -  Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Information Center 

# Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee Bylaws

lbccommitteebylaws.pdf (174.93 KB)

Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee Bylaws

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
# C_2007082EN.01001902.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/19

---

Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-45/07)

(2007/C 82/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson, M. Konstantinidis and F. Hoffmeister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by submitting to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on 18 March 2005 a proposal for ‘Monitoring the compliance of ships and port facilities with the requirements of Chapter XI-2 of SOLAS and the ISPS Code’, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10, 71 and 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by submitting to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on 18 March 2005 a proposal for ‘Monitoring the compliance of ships and port facilities with the requirements of Chapter XI-2 of SOLAS and the ISPS Code’, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10, 71 and 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

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

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, the submission by the Hellenic Republic to the International Maritime Organisation of a proposal in respect of a matter covered by Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 (1) on enhancing ship and port facility security, without being authorised so to do by the Community, constitutes a breach of its obligations under Articles 10, 71 and 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

1

The Commission submits that, since the adoption of Regulation No 725/2004, the Community has had exclusive competence with regard to entering into international obligations in the field of maritime security. Consequently, the Member States no longer have the power to present national views to the International Maritime Organisation on matters which fall within exclusive Community competence, unless they receive such authorisation from the Community.

---

(1)  OJ L 129, 29.4.2004, p. 6.

1

---
1

The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations from the

Honorable Henry L. Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-4074

___________

Rickey C. Brooks, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 16, 2000

Filed: July 18, 2000

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BEAM, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rickey C. Brooks petitioned for a writ a habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The district court1

 found Brooks' petition was untimely filed, rejecting Brooks'

contention that his federal statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of his
-2-

state post-conviction proceeding because the late filing of his state action was excused

by an ice storm that closed the state court house on the last day he could file it. After

carefully reviewing the record and the relevant law, we agree the petition was untimely

and affirm the well-reasoned decision of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Terremark Worldwide, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Manuel
D. Medina, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  June 30, 2003



                                                         /s/ MANUEL D. MEDINA
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Manuel D. Medina
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
*Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have no precedential value

and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule,

the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No.95-60115

Summary Calendar

ROBERT WALKER BOTTS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DERRICK PRUITT, Individually and

in his official capacity as Deputy

Sheriff of Lee County, ED CRIDER,

in his official capacity as Sheriff

of Lee County, and LEE COUNTY,

MISSISSIPPI,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:94-CV-73)

(October 6, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This matter is before the court on appeal by Robert Walker Botts of an adverse

summary judgment rejecting his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and the district court’s dismissal

of hisstate law claimsfor lack of jurisdiction. Finding no error, and for the reasons assigned

in the MemorandumOpinion by the district court rendered and entered on January 30, 1995,
2

the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
§ 2.3 General rules. ( a ) Commissioners shall not jointly conduct, determine or dispose of Commission business other than in accordance with this part.
( b ) Except as provided in 11 CFR 2.4, every portion of every Commission meeting shall be open to public observation.
( c ) No additional right to participate in Commission meetings is granted to any person by this part. A meeting is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed therein except as otherwise required by law. Statements of views or expressions of opinions made by Commissioners or FEC employees at meetings are not intended to represent final determinations or beliefs.
( d ) Members of the public attending open Commission meetings may use small electronic sound recorders to record the meeting, but the use of other electronic recording equipment and cameras requires advance notice to and coordination with the Commission's Press Officer.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,069
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    119,403
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,640
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,652
<LOANS>                                        152,066
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,273
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 289,440
<DEPOSITS>                                     205,267
<SHORT-TERM>                                     9,100
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,851
<LONG-TERM>                                     50,582
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,604
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 289,440
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,918
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,952
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     1
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,871
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,172
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,910
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,961
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       75
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   6
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,734
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    455
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         455
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       273
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.19
<LOANS-NON>                                        890
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   144
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,176
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       15
<RECOVERIES>                                        37
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,273
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,019
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            254
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James McClain, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 177]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Timothy J. Drury, J.), rendered March 9, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed. Present— Hurlbutt, A.RJ., Scudder, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disf avors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 4/10/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ MARCUS W. ENGLISH, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 95-5069 ) (D.C. No. 93-C-1142-E) STANLEY GLANZ, sued as: Stanley Glantz, ) (N.D. Okla.) Tulsa County Sheriff; MARGARET STRIPLING, ) sued as: Mrs. ? Stripling, Head Doctor of Tulsa ) County Jail, ) ) Defendants-Appellees. )

__________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

_________________________ Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

__________________________ After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Mr. English is a pro se litigant. He sued the sheriff and a doctor under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment after concluding Mr . English’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. We exercise jurisdiction and af firm the judgment of the district court.

### 2

Mr. English commenced this suit by filing his amended complaint June 27, 1994. Mr. English, insofar as is applicable to this appeal, contended he was confined in the Tulsa County Jail where inmates assaulted him on December 16, 1991. He contended the doc tor gave him inadequate medical treatment following the assault. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment with supporting evidentiary materials.
The trial court applied Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations which applies to “an action for injury to the rights of another” and concluded this statute barr ed the claims. See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95(3).
Mr. English appeals this decision asserting a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights has some other unspecified limitation period. Mr. English, without the be nefit of supporting law, argues a violation of a constitutional right has no limitation per iod. He argues the trial court failed to grasp the concept that his suit was for a violation of his cons titutional rights and was not a “civil complaint as a personal injury to the rights of another.”
Mr. English fails to comprehend the law. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that because there is no federal statute of limitations for a civil rights action (it is beyond dispute that an action based on 42 U.S.C. §1983 is a civil rights action), the time in which such an action must be filed is determined by the applicable state statute of lim itations for personal injury actions. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-67 (1985).

### 3

Mr. English has failed to persuade this court of any error by the trial court. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED
.

Entered for the Court:

WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-3 (No. 333-106328) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-26797,333-30771, 333-39213, 333-39189, 333-69761, 333-69765, 333-93413, 333-93407,333-67790, 333-97891 and 333-111253) of Vital Images, Inc. of our report datedFebruary 6, 2004, except as to Note 15 for which the date is February 18, 2004relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, whichappears in this Form 10-K.

 

 

 
| PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP |
|----------------------------|
| Minneapolis, Minnesota     |
| March 15, 2004             |

 

----
# C_2007016EN.01000401.xml

| 24.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/4

---

MEDIA — Support for the transnational distribution of European films and audiovisual works on video (VHS and DVD)

(2007/C 16/05)

Due to budget restrictions, the Commission has decided (on 31 October 2006) to cancel the round of applications (‘calls for proposals’) for automatic funding for video distribution. This also means that the funds for reinvestment that would have been part of these calls will not be available either.

---
# C_2006294EN.01003501.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/35

---

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 6 September 2006 –Republic of Austria v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-161/04) (1)

1

(2006/C 294/61)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.

1

---
# C_2006326EN.01005703.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/57

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 — Evropaiki Dinamiki v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-106/05) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Call for tenders concerning technical assistance to improve the information and communication technology system in the State Institute of Statistics of the Republic of Turkey - Application rejected - Period for bringing proceedings - Confirmatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 326/124)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer,)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Tufvesson and K. Kańska, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission's decisions not to select the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of a call for tenders for the provision of technical assistance for the improvement of the system of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) of the Turkish National Institute for Statistics and of the decisions rejecting the applicant's request to renew the decision not to short-list it.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

1

---
#### Robert Haddock *v.*Milton Lebov

*Diane D. Bubin,*for the appellee (defendant).

*Barry J. Sinoway,*for the .appellant (plaintiff).

Argued June 4

decided June *4,*1974

. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County is denied.