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

77-142 

May 2, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4044(b)(4) Allocation of Assets. Reallocations by Secretary of the Treasury 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your inquiry about the effect of the Internal Revenue Service's (the "IRS") determination that

partial terminations had occurred in a plan that had previously received a notice of sufficiency from the Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC"). 

The plan in question is * * * (the "Plan"), PBGC Case No. * * * which was issued a notice of sufficiency by the

PBGC on * * *. As we understand the pertinent facts, after the Plan received the PBGC notice of sufficiency the IRS

determined that, pursuant to Section 411(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, partial terminations had occurred on August

1, 1974 and August 1, 1975. This IRS determination necessitated the inclusion of additional participants in the allocation

of Plan assets. 

No Plan participant's benefit is in priority categories 1 through 4A, as defined in Section 4044(a) of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Each Plan participant's benefit is in either category 5 or 6, as

defined in Section 4044 of ERISA. Section 4044(b)(4) of ERISA authorizes IRS to re-allocate benefits in categories

4B, 5, [*2] and 6, and the IRS determination that partial terminations had occurred caused a re-allocation of Plan

benefits in categories 5 and 6 in this case. The plan administrator is obligated to submit to PBGC a copy of the final

distribution made of Plan assets. Other than such submission, no further notifications are required by the PBGC in this

case. 

 Because under Section 4022 of ERISA there are no guaranteed Plan benefits, no employer liability arises from the

new allocation, and the PBGC has no obligation to provide additional funds for benefit payments. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### §214c. Conversions in contravention of State law

No conversion of a national banking association into a State bank or its merger or consolidation with a State bank shall take place under this subchapter and section 321 of this title in contravention of the law of the State in which the national banking association is located; and no such conversion, merger, or consolidation shall take place under said sections unless under the law of the State in which such national banking association is located State banks may without approval by any State authority convert into and merge or consolidate with national banking associations under limitations or conditions no more restrictive than those contained in section 214a of this title with respect to the conversion of a national bank into, or merger or consolidation of a national bank with, a State bank under State charter.

(Aug. 17, 1950, ch. 729, §4, 64 Stat. 456; July 12, 1952, ch. 696, 66 Stat. 590; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1263, §25, 68 Stat. 1235.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1954—Act Sept. 3, 1954, substituted "this subchapter and section 321 of this title" for "sections 214 to 214c, 264(e)(2), (i)(2), (v)(4), and 321 of this title".

1952—Act July 12, 1952, amended section so that the limitation of this section beyond which State law cannot go will be measured by the standard set out in section 214a of this title for National-to-State conversions.
September	29,	2014

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation Docket	Management	System 400	7 th Street	SW,	Plaza	401 Washington,	DC		20591 - 0001 Re: Exemption	No.	5549,	as	amended;	Docket	No. FAA- 2000 - 8434 Ladies/Gentlemen: In	accordance	with	Title	14	of	the	Code	of	Federal	Regulations	(14CFR)	§	11.61,	the	Air Transport	Association	of	America	(ATA) dba	Airlines	for	America,	on	behalf	of	its	member airlines 1 and	other	similarly	situated	Part 121	certificate	holders,	petitions	the	Administrator for	an	extension	of	Exemption	No.	5549L (Docket	No. FAA- 2000 - 8434).		This	exemption	is schedule d	to	expire	on	January	31,	2015 . Exemption	No.	5549J provides	relief	from	14	CFR	§	121.652(a)	and	(c)	by	permitting	a	pilot	in command	under	Part	121	to	conduct	an	instrument	approach	under	certain	weather conditions	during	the	first	100	hours	of	service	using	an	alternative	means	approved	by	the Administrator	subject	to	certain	conditions	and	limitations. The conditions	and	circumstances	which	warranted	the	original	grant	of	exemption,	in	regard to	public	interest	and	equivalent	levels	of	safety,	continue	to	exist.		This	petition	does	not	seek to	change	the	conditions	and	limitations	of	the	current	exemption. This	exemption	has	been in	use	safely	for	almost	ten	years. The	renewal	of	this	exemption	is	not	a	controversial	issue.		For	this	reason,	and	the	reasons stated	above,	ATA	requests	that	a	finding	of	good	cause	be	made	for	waiving	publication	in	the Feder al	Register

,	(14	CFR	§11.87).		Granting	the	requested	relief	will	set	no	precedents.		The existence	of	the	exemption	is	well	known	and	widely	accepted.

**_______________________________________________** 1/ Operator	Members: Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Atlas Air, Delta Air Lines, Federal Express, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Polar Air Cargo, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, United Parcel Service, US Airways.Docket No. FAA-2000 - 8434

September	29,	2014 Page	Two A	summary	of	this	p etition	as	required	by	14	CFR	§11.81	is	attached. If	you	have	any	questions	or	need	additional	information, please	call	me	at	(202)	626 - 4285 . Very	truly	yours, Airlines	for	America By:	__________________________ Paul	Railsback Managing Director - Operations (202)	626 - 4012 prailsback@airlines.orgU.S.	Department	of	Transportation

Docket	Management	System Docket No. FAA-2000 - 8434 September	29,	2014

Attachment

**SUMMARY	OF	ATA	PETITION** The Air Transport Association, on behalf of its member airlines and other similarly situated Part 121 operators, petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 5549I. This exemption permits a pilot in command under Part 121 to conduct an instrument approach procedure to the weather minima prescribed by this exemption during the first 100 hours of service as a pilot in command, in the type of airplane he or she is operating, using an alternative means approved by the Administrator of satisfying 14 CFR	§121.652(a)	and	(c),	subject	to	certain	conditions	and	limitations.
-  Home 

# Special Permit 12677

SP12677_2009100643.pdf (89.73 KB)

*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.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 900.208 How are non-medical related tort claims and lawsuits filed for DOI?

Non-medical-related claims arising out of the performance of self-determination contracts with the Secretary of the Interior should be filed in the manner described in § 900.201 with the Assistant Solicitor, Procurement and Patents, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Room 6511, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
#### Barlow *v.*United States Encaustic Tile Works.

[No. 12,271.

Filed July 2, 1925.

Rehearing denied October 15, 1925.

Petition to transfer dismissed November 19, 1925.]

1. Master and *Servant.—Evidence that machine was not guarded would not determine liability, and was properly ex*cluded.—An employee injured by machine in employer’s factory under circumstances entitling him to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is entitled thereto whether machine was properly guarded or not, and Industrial Board’s exclusion of evidence that it was not guarded was proper, p. 647. .

2. Master and *Servant.—Testimony held to sustain Industrial Board in denying compensation to claimant under Workmen’s Compensation*Act.—Testimony of three physicians that claimant’s cataleptic condition was not due to the injury on which his claim was based held sufficient to sustain ruling of Industrial Board denying him compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. p. 647.

From Industrial Board of Indiana.

Application for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by Thomas Ryan Barlow against the United States Encaustic Tile Company. From an order denying compensation, the claimant appeals. *Affirmed.*By the court in banc.

*Charles A. Messmore,*for appellant.

*Joseph W. Hutchinson,*for appellee.

McMahan, J.

This is an appeal from an award of the Industrial Board denying appellant compensation for an injury which he claims he received when in the employ of appellee. The board found that in December, 1922, while in the employ of appellee, appellant was disabled for work, but that the evidence failed to show that his disability was the result of an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment with appellee.

*647
      1.
      *646Appellant contends that the board erred in refusing to allow him to introduce evidence to show that a cer*647tain machine which he claims was the cause of his injury was not guarded. There was no error in refusing to admit that evidence. If he was injured by the machine in question, or in any manner, under circumstances entitling him to compensation, he was entitled to compensation whether the machine was properly guarded or not.

2. The only other question presented relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding. Appellant was suffering from catalepsy. Three physicians examined him and testified that his condition was not due to the injury he claims to have received while in the employ of the appellee. That these witnesses so testified is conceded by appellant. He contends, however, that their testimony is not sufficient to justify the board in denying him compensation. The Industrial Board evidently believed the testimony of these physicians. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the award.

The award is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

 

**Certification by the Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of JD.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2019, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto (the “Report”), I, Sidney Xuande Huang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: June 28, 2019 |
|--------------------------|
|                     |   |
| By:                      | /s/ Sidney Xuande Huang |   |
| Name:                    | Sidney Xuande Huang |   |
| Title:                   | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
#### FISHER v. MELTON

No. 480A89

Case below: 95 N.C.App. 729

Petition by defendant, Lillie P. Melton, pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to additional issues allowed 18 January 1990. Petition by defendant Lassiter for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 18 January 1990. Petition by defendants Batts for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 18 January 1990.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

STATEMENT UNDER OATH OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
REGARDING FORM 10-Q FOR QUARTER ENDING
JUNE 30, 2002

I, Stephanie Schmitt, Chief Financial Officer 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 June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/   Stephanie Schmitt |  | Dated this 14th
day of August 2002.
|Name:  |  | Stephanie Schmitt       |  |                                    
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |                                    

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          35,468
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,232
<ALLOWANCES>                                       731
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,238
<PP&E>                                         971,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                  85,408
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,083,427
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,475
<BONDS>                                        554,348
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                     466,579
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,083,427
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               138,936
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   609
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   659
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 49,342
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             49,342
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    582
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,442
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.96


</TABLE>
#### Martin J. O’Meara, Jr., Trustee *v.*City of Norwich et al.

*Lewis G. Maruzo,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Geurson D. Silverberg,*for the appellants (defendants).

Argued April 2

decided April 2, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in New London County is granted unless the defendants file their brief on or before May 1, 1974.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

78-18 

August 4, 1978 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4022 Benefits Guaranteed 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your inquiry concerning the impact on guaranteed benefits of an employer's inability to meet

minimum funding contributions. 

As we understand the facts, your client is the union which represents the participants in a defined benefit plan. The

employer has had past difficulties in funding the plan. In 1976, the employer made some contributions against 1973 and

1974 funding levels; no contributions have been made for 1975 or 1976. The minimum funding standards required by

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") became applicable to the plan on January 1, 1977.

The employer has requested a waiver from the Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") for the minimum funding

contribution that is due by September 15, 1978. 

Your client is concerned about the possible impact on guaranteed benefits of the waiver and the pre-ERISA funding

difficulties. Employees' guaranteed benefits are not impaired by an employer's temporary inability to make contributions

to the plan. In the event of a plan's termination, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") will provide

the benefits guaranteed under Title IV of ERISA. [*2] An employer is liable to the PB GC to the extent that the

guaranteed benefits exceed plan assets. 

I hope that this will be of assistance to you. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### §1833. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title II, §2224(b), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–415

Section, Pub. L. 101–73, title IX, §918, Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 487, required certain agencies to annually report to Congress detailing civil and criminal actions and investigations undertaken during preceding 12-month period.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Frank Distante

*Thomas F. Brown,*in support of the petition.

*Richard R. Brown,*in opposition.

Submitted April 18

decided May 8, 1974

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Court of Common Pleas is denied.
# C_2006326EN.01008002.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/80

---

Action brought on 30 November 2006 — Stradivarius España v OHIM — Ricci (Stradivari 1715)

(Case T-340/06)

(2006/C 326/163)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Stradivarius España (Arteixo, La Coruña, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and P. López Ronda, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cristina Ricci

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 in Case R 1024/2005-1 and, allowing the appeal lodged against Decision No 2205/2005 of the Opposition Division, reject Community trade mark application No 2.269.256 (figurative mark Stradivari 1715) and order the applicant for a Community trade mark to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 in Case R 1024/2005-1 and, allowing the appeal lodged against Decision No 2205/2005 of the Opposition Division, reject Community trade mark application No 2.269.256 (figurative mark Stradivari 1715) and order the applicant for a Community trade mark to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings;

| — | order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in the present action; |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in the present action;

| — | if necessary, order the intervener to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, order the intervener to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Cristina Ricci.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Stradivari 1715’ (application for registration No 2.269.256) for products in classes 14, 16 and 18.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘Stradivarius’, for products in classes 14 and 16 (No 1.246.164) and 18 (No 506.469).

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark.

Pleas in law:

---
### §924b. Art. 124b. Graft

(a) Asking, Accepting, or Receiving Thing of Value.—Any person subject to this chapter—

(1) who occupies an official position or who has official duties; and

(2) who wrongfully asks, accepts, or receives a thing of value as compensation for or in recognition of services rendered or to be rendered by the person with respect to an official matter in which the United States is interested;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Promising, Offering, or Giving Thing of Value.—Any person subject to this chapter who wrongfully promises, offers, or gives a thing of value to another person, who occupies an official position or who has official duties, as compensation for or in recognition of services rendered or to be rendered by the other person with respect to an official matter in which the United States is interested, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(Added Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, §5438, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2953.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.
-  Home 
-  Hazmat 
-  Hazardous Materials Emergency Waivers 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits                          -  Overview 
                        -  Energetic Materials 
                        -  General Approvals 
                        -  Pressure Vessels Approvals 
                        -  Approvals Search 
                        -  Special Permits 
                        -  Special Permits Search 
                        -  Emergency Waivers 
                      -  Pipeline Special Permits & State Waivers 

## Contact Us

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation1200 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.

# PHMSA Approvals and Permits

## Overview

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has the primary responsibility for the issuance of DOT special permits and approvals for hazardous materials and for natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. Special permits authorize a person to perform a function outside of PHMSA regulations or to not perform a function currently required under the PHMSA regulations. Approvals authorize the transportation of designated hazardous materials (i.e. explosives) or the performance of a designated hazardous materials function (i.e. cylinder retester) under the PHMSA regulations. Use the menu on the left to learn more about special permits and approvals for hazardous materials and pipelines.

## Hazardous Materials Safety

PHMSA has the primary responsibility for the issuance of DOT special permits and approvals to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). A special permit is a document which authorizes a person to perform a function that is not currently authorized under the authority of the HMR. An approval is a document that is issued under specific authority granted in the HMR (for example this authority covers the approval of explosives, organic peroxides, and chemical oxygen generators).

## Pipeline Safety

An operator of natural gas or hazardous liquid pipelines may request a Special Permit from satisfying Federal pipeline safety regulations if they feel compliance would not be appropriate due to unique circumstances. PHMSA may grant a Special Permit, at its discretion, if sufficient alternative safeguards to the public safety are implemented.