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

76-42 

March 23, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041 Termination by Plan Administrator 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of February 10 and our telephone discussions of March 1 and 8, 1976, regarding

the * * * Pension Plan (the "Plan"). You indicate that the employer, * * * desires to cease employer contributions and

benefits accruals under the Plan. Further, you indicate that * * * as plan administrator, intends to terminate the * * * as

trustee of the Plan and thereafter hold assets in a wasting trust for the benefit of plan participants. 

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC" ) considers the cessation of contributions and benefit accruals

under a plan to constitute a plan termination. Therefore, if the Plan is a plan covered by Title IV of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, (the "Act"), the plan administrator must file a notice of intent to terminate with

this Corporation. The notice must propose a date of termination which may not be less than 10 days after the filing and,

for a period of 90 days after the proposed termination date, the plan administrator shall make no distribution pursuant

to the termination unless he receives a notice of sufficiency from this Corporation prior to the expiration [*2] of the 90-

day period. See Act § 4041. Further, the notice must be filed in the manner prescribed in the regulations promulgated

by PBGC governing procedures with regard to a notice of intent to terminate, Part 2604, Title 29, Code of Federal

Regulations, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. 

The issue of permitting a wasting trust to be maintained by the employer as part of the termination procedure for

sufficient plans is presently under review by the Corporation. PBGC has adopted the interim position that wasting trusts

are permissible in the case of sufficient plans provided participation by plan participants is wholly voluntary.

Accordingly, if a plan participant does not choose to participate in the wasting trust, the Plan must make other

arrangements to provide earned benefits to such participant. One arrangement approved in the past by this Corporation

is the purchase of a fully paid annuity. 

I hope this answers your question. Should you have additional questions, please direct them to the Office of the

General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 2020 K Street, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
SCPR-18-0000752

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN RE MILTON S. TANI, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition to resign and

surrender his license to practice law in the State of Hawai#i

filed by attorney Milton S. Tani, pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the

Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), and

the affidavits submitted in support thereof, we conclude

Petitioner Tani has complied with the requirements of RSCH

Rule 1.10. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g),

that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and

record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the

name of Petitioner Milton S. Tani, attorney number 3037, from the

roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai#i, effective with the

filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 17, 2018.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPR-18-0000752

17-OCT-2018

01:06 PM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DORIAN MILLER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 405 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
§ 110.4 Contributions in the name of another; cash contributions (52 U.S.C. 30122, 30123, 30102(c)(2)). ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Contributions in the name of another.* ( 1 ) No person shall— ( i ) Make a contribution in the name of another;
( ii ) Knowingly permit his or her name to be used to effect that contribution; or
( iii ) Knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another.
( 2 ) Examples of *contributions in the name of another* include— ( i ) Giving money or anything of value, all or part of which was provided to the contributor by another person (the true contributor) without disclosing the source of money or the thing of value to the recipient candidate or committee at the time the contribution is made, *see* 11 CFR 110.6; or
( ii ) Making a contribution of money or anything of value and attributing as the source of the money or thing of value another person when in fact the contributor is the source.
( c ) *Cash contributions.* ( 1 ) With respect to any campaign for nomination for election or election to Federal office, no person shall make contributions to a candidate or political committee of currency of the United States, or of any foreign country, which in the aggregate exceed $100.
( 2 ) A candidate or committee receiving a cash contribution in excess of $100 shall promptly return the amount over $100 to the contributor.
( 3 ) A candidate or committee receiving an anonymous cash contribution in excess of $50 shall promptly dispose of the amount over $50. The amount over $50 may be used for any lawful purpose unrelated to any Federal election, campaign, or candidate.
[54 FR 34112, Aug. 17, 1989, and 54 FR 48580, Nov. 24, 1989, as amended at 54 FR 48582, Nov. 24, 1989; 55 FR 1139, Jan. 11, 1990; 67 FR 69948, Nov. 19, 2002; 88 FR 33817, May 25, 2023]
COURT OF APPEALS FOR TilE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER Appellate case name: 

### William Bush and Mari Marc S.A. de C.V.v. Cardtronics, Inc. and Cardtronics S.A. de C.V. Appellate case number: 01-12-00708-CV 

### Trial court case number: 1031459
Trial court: 281 st District Court of Harris County
Appellant William Bush, proceeding pro se, has filed a brief signed by himself only, purporting to be on behalf of himself and on behalf of appellant Mari Marc, S.A. de C.V. Bush asserts in the brief that Mari Marc, S.A. de C.V. is a Mexican corporation. Texas courts have consistently held that a non-attorney may not appear pro se on behalf of a corporation. Corona v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 245 S.W.3d 75, 79 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2008, pet. denied); see Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996). A corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney in the prosecution of its appeal. See Moore v. Elektro-Mobil Technik GmbH, 874 S.W.2d 324, 327 (Tex. App.--E1 Paso 1994, writ denied). Accordingly, if it desires to prosecute its appeal, Mari Marc, S.A. de C.V. must retain licensed counsel to represent it. Any attorney retained to represent Marl Marc, S.A. de C.V. in this appeal must make an appearance by filing a notice of representation xvith the Clerk of this ,Court by January 4, 2013. If such notice of representation is not filed, Marl Marc, S.A. de C.V. s appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c); see also MHL Dabal/Graphic Resource, No. 14-05-00295-CV, 2005 WL 1404475 [14th Dist.] June 16, 2005, no pet.) (mere. op.). Homebuilder LLC v. (Tex. App.--HoustonIn addition, appellants’ brief filed on November 21, 2012 ~s stricken. Appellant William Bush

may file an amended appellant’s brief acting pro se on behalf of himself only. An amended briefing schedule will be set once it is determined whether Mari Marc, S.A. de C.V. will be retaining counsel to represent it in this appeal or whether its appeal will be dismissed.

It is so ORDERED. 

### Judge’s signature:/s/Laura C. Higley

[] Acting individually [] Acting for the Court

Date: December 13, 2012
( 

RUl.i: 213.2. Oefinitior1~ fct· !~ulc; 213 M;rl ?.13.1 ........ ______ -----···-

(a) STfiTIO:U-.RY SOURCE mr.;;ns a lmit or an ag9rctut.ion of units of nonvehicular u.ir··contJminunt.-craitting cquipr.:cnt \·th::h is 1ocilted on 

one p1·ope1·ty or on. contiguous propc·l·ti es; \·:hi ch is undct· the same 

0\'l'nership or entitlement to usc ;md opc1·ate; 2nd, in t1J~ c£J.sc of iln 

aggregation of units, those units \·thich a1·e re1atcu to one unother. 

Units shall be deemed related to one another if the operation of 

one is dependent upcn, or affects tire opcr!ition of. the other; if 

. . 

their operation involves a cc.rr.non o~ simi1a1·-ra1'1 mcteria1. product$ 

or functio11; o~ if they have the same fir~t thre~ digits in their 

standard industrial c1assific~tion codes as determined from the 

Standard Jnrlustriill C1~ssificatb.Q _ _t1aJ~ua_l pubUshed in 1972 by the 

-I:xccuti vc Office of the Pt·csi dentt Office of l·iu:-:.agement and Budset. 

I_n addition, in cases \·/here all or part of a stationury source is a 

facility used to load cargo onto or unicad <.:a1·go from cargo carders, 

other than r;:otor vehicles, the Air Pollution Control Officer shul1 

. . 

consider such carriers to be parts of the stationary source. According1y, 

all emissions from such curdet·s (excluding tr.otor vehicles) which 

wi 11 result in an advet·se impact .on air qua 1 ity in th•..: State of 

California shall be ccnsidct·ed as e:nissions fr01:1 such stu.tionary 

source. Emissions ft·om such carriets shall include those that 

·result fr·om the opct·ation of the carricts' engines; the purging or 

other method of venting of v~pol's; und from the loading, unlovding, 

stcn·agc, processing, ilnci tn:nsfc1· of cargo. 
method of operation of, il si.:.:JtiQ:Jary source . 

. For the purposes of this definition: 

1. Routine mainU:nan::~ or rr::p:lir sha11 not be cor.s·idercd to bt~ 

\ 

physicul ch<Ynges, und 

2. An increJSC in pi·ocluction rL\tc ui' o;~·~r,:,.ting ho~:;·s shall r.ot. be 

considered to he i} change in the r:~ct:":'Jd of opcratioi1, pro·1iced 

that these inctet!ses are not c.:ontrar,:,r to ~ny existing permit to 

operate conditions. 

(c) BEST t~V/\ILABLE cmiTROL TECE!·-lOLOGY ineans th§ IT';Ixirr.:.m degi'€~2 of 

emission control for any air contamin~nt emitting equipment, taking 

into account techno 1 ogy \·:hi ch is knoHn but not necess?.rily in 

useJ provided that the Air Pollut-ion C0nt1·ol Officel' si~J11 r.ot 

inieq:wet best available cont>·o1 tcchnolo~;y to include a require::;ent 

\'thich \·Jill result in the closing C\nd e1·1minat·icn of or· in11b"i1 ity to 

.. . 

:construct a lawful business ~rl1ich could be operated with the ap~licaticn 

of the best co'nt11ol technology cm·tently in use. 

(d) Se.verabil ity: 

If any pot4tion of this Rule shall be found to.be tmenforceabl~. such 

finding shall have no effect on the enforceability ci' the t·emairdng 

portions of the Rule, \':hich shall continue to ce in full force and 

effect.
## NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS (NCES)



# SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BO UNDARY SURVEY

(SABS) JULY 2013

– JULY 2016

PART B OMB SUBMISSION

DECEMBER 2012

### B. **COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLO**  **YING STATISTICAL MET HODS** 

**1. Respondent Universe**  The universe of this survey will come from the 2012
- 2 013 Common Core of Data public school universe, with a few exceptions. Boundary data will not be collected from : 1. Regional schools 2. S pecial Ed schools 3. Charter schools 4. Closed schools 5. Open enrollment schools **2. Statistical Procedures for Collecting Information**  This is a census of the school universe, thus sampling will not be utilized
. **3. Procedures for Collection of Information**  1) NCES and Census staff will prepare a list of eligible schools and school districts from the 2012
- 2013 CCD school universe file. 2) The school district list will be categorized based on the size of student enrollment. 3) NCES will compare the above district s to distri cts residing on the 2009
- 2010 acquired SABIN school district project file
. 4) Census Bureau staff will contact the acquired SABIN school district s first to confirm and update its school boundaries. 5) Census staff will contact and confirm school district s that have onl y one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school. The district boundary for these school will be each school ’s boundary
. 6) Census staff will then contact the rest of the school districts. **4. Methods for Maximizing Response Rates**  The school service are a boundaries will be collected using one of the following methods: 1) Districts will submit through the online collection system , which allow s them to log in during the collection period to update, submit , and correct school boundaries
. The final file will be in the shape file format that c an be used by all GIS system; 2) Districts will submit through the online collection system or via email the ir already existing shape file; or 3) Districts will submit the ir paper maps via mail, which the Census Bureau will digitize into shape file format. **5. Tests of Procedures and Methods**  The SABS system will us e cloud technology maintained and updated b y NCES ’s contractor , Sanametrix, who will daily review and update the school boundaries data during the data collection period. **6. Reviewing Statisticians**  Tai Phan, of NCES, is the SABS program director and Maril yn Seastrom is the Chief Statistician for NCES consulted on technical aspects o f the data collection.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-74704, 333-84548, and 333-82350) and Form S-8
(Nos. 333-69318, 333-71504, 333-76042, and 333-82348) of Regent Communications,
Inc. of our report dated March 5, 2003 relating to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
March 27, 2003
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 19, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 19, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21I0109. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al. v. THE ESTATE OF ELIZABETH ADAMS 

BY EXECUTOR, ADRIAN ADAMS et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

20C01546
§ 3.20 Handling. ( a ) Any person subject to the Animal Welfare regulations (9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3) who moves (including loading and unloading) dogs or cats within, to, or from the animal holding area of a terminal facility or a primary conveyance must do so as quickly and efficiently as possible and must provide the following during movement of the dog or cat: ( 1 ) Shelter from sunlight and extreme heat. Sufficient shade must be provided to protect the dog or cat from the direct rays of the sun. The dog or cat must not be exposed to an ambient air temperature above 85 °F (29.5 °C) for a period of more than 45 minutes while being moved to or from a primary conveyance or a terminal facility. The temperature must be measured in the manner provided in § 3.19(d). The preceding requirements are in addition to, not in place of, all other requirements pertaining to climatic conditions in parts 2 and 3 of this chapter.
( 2 ) *Shelter from rain and snow.* Sufficient protection must be provided to allow the dogs and cats to remain dry during rain, snow, and other precipitation.
( 3 ) *Shelter from cold temperatures.* Transporting devices on which live dogs or cats are placed to move them must be covered to protect the animals when the outdoor temperature falls below 50 °F (10 °C). The dogs or cats must not be exposed to an ambient temperature below 45 °F (7.2 °C) for a period of more than 45 minutes, unless they are accompanied by a certificate of acclimation to lower temperatures as provided in § 3.14(e). The temperature must be measured in the manner provided in § 3.19(d). The preceding requirements are in addition to, not in place of, all other requirements pertaining to climatic conditions in parts 2 and 3 of this chapter.
( b ) Any person handling a primary enclosure containing a dog or cat must use care and must avoid causing physical harm or distress to the dog or cat. ( 1 ) A primary enclosure containing a live dog or cat must not be placed on unattended conveyor belts, or on elevated conveyor belts, such as baggage claim conveyor belts and inclined conveyor ramps that lead to baggage claim areas, at any time; except that a primary enclosure may be placed on inclined conveyor ramps used to load and unload aircraft if an attendant is present at each end of the conveyor belt.
( 2 ) A primary enclosure containing a dog or cat must not be tossed, dropped, or needlessly tilted, and must not be stacked in a manner that may reasonably be expected to result in its falling. It must be handled and positioned in the manner that written instructions and arrows on the outside of the primary enclosure indicate.
( c ) This section applies to movement of a dog or cat from primary conveyance to primary conveyance, within a primary conveyance or terminal facility, and to or from a terminal facility or a primary conveyance.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0093) [56 FR 6486, Feb. 15, 1991, as amended at 63 FR 10499, Mar. 4, 1998. Redesignated and amended at 85 FR 28798, 28799, May 13, 2020]
### §5389. Rulemaking; non-conflicting law

The Corporation shall, in consultation with the Council, prescribe such rules or regulations as the Corporation considers necessary or appropriate to implement this subchapter, including rules and regulations with respect to the rights, interests, and priorities of creditors, counterparties, security entitlement holders, or other persons with respect to any covered financial company or any assets or other property of or held by such covered financial company, and address the potential for conflicts of interest between or among individual receiverships established under this subchapter or under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.]. To the extent possible, the Corporation shall seek to harmonize applicable rules and regulations promulgated under this section with the insolvency laws that would otherwise apply to a covered financial company.

(Pub. L. 111–203, title II, §209, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1460.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title II of Pub. L. 111–203, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1442, which is classified principally to this subchapter. For complete classification of title II to the Code, see Tables.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, referred to in text, is act Sept. 21, 1950, ch. 967, §2, 64 Stat. 873, which is classified generally to chapter 16 (§1811 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1811 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 1 day after July 21, 2010, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 5301 of this title.
# C_2010274EN.01002002.xml

| 9.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/20

---

Action brought on 16 August 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-408/10)

()

2010/C 274/32

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that the Republic of Estonia has failed to notify the measures necessary to transpose Directive 2008/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 repealing Council Directive 84/539/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electro-medical equipment used in veterinary medicine; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Estonia has failed to notify the measures necessary to transpose Directive 2008/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 repealing Council Directive 84/539/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electro-medical equipment used in veterinary medicine; (1)

1

| — | order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 31 December 2008.

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 76, p. 41.

1

---
*

 The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 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 disfavors 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.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

SEP 17 2001

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

GLENN R. STEVENS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

COLORADO, ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

COLORADO,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 01-1163

(No. 01-Z-376)

(District of Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , KELLY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Pro se petitioner Glenn R. Stevens, a Colorado state prisoner, seeks a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) to challenge

the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We

conclude that Stevens has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
1

 Colo. Const. art. V, § 18 (“The style of the laws of this state shall be:

‘Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado’.”); id. art.

XVIII, § 8 (“The general assembly shall provide for the publication of the laws

passed at each session thereof.”).

-2-

constitutional right, § 2253(c)(2), and we deny COA.

Stevens pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated robbery, conspiracy, and

intimidation of a witness, and he is serving a term of twenty-three years

imprisonment. In his habeas application, Stevens claims that he was deprived of

his rights to due process and equal protection because he was convicted under

state statutes that were published in the Colorado Revised Statutes without an

enacting clause. While it is true that the Colorado Constitution requires inclusion

of an enacting clause in and publication of each state law, 1

 Stevens does not

dispute that each of the statutes he was convicted under was published, with the

enactment clause, in the Session Laws of Colorado. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-

70-223(1) (providing for such publication). We thus find Stevens’ application to

be without merit.

For substantially the reasons of the district court, the application for COA

is DENIED , and the appeal is DISMISSED . Petitioner’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis is GRANTED .

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court,
-3-

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge