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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3623

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to increase 

the maximum levels of guaranteed single-employer plan benefits, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2003

Mr. OBERSTAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

of 1974 to increase the maximum levels of guaranteed 

single-employer plan benefits, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS OF GUARANTEED SINGLE-EM4 PLOYER PLAN BENEFITS. 

5 (a) INCREASE IN MAXIMUM BENEFIT.—Section 

6 4022(b)(3)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Secu7 rity Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1322(b)(3)(B)) is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘$750’’ and inserting ‘‘$850’’. 
2

•HR 3623 IH 

1 (b) CERTAIN SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS NOT

2 TREATED AS NON-BASIC BENEFITS.—Section 4022 of 

3 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

4 (29 U.S.C. 1322) is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(g)(1) A supplemental benefit described in para7 graph (2) shall not be treated as a non-basic benefit mere8 ly because it results in the participant’s benefits under the 

9 plan exceeding the amount payable under the plan as a 

10 life annuity commencing at normal retirement age. 

11 ‘‘(2) A supplemental benefit described in this para12 graph is a benefit that—

13 ‘‘(A) commences before benefits payable under 

14 title II of the Social Security Act become payable, 

15 ‘‘(B) does not exceed such social security bene16 fits, and 

17 ‘‘(C) terminates when such social security bene18 fits commence.’’. 

19 (c) INDEXING OF MAXIMUM GUARANTEED BENEFITS

20 UNDER PLANS OR AMENDMENTS NOT IN EFFECT FOR 60 

21 MONTHS.—Section 4022(b)(7)(B) of the Employee Re22 tirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 

23 1322(b)(7)(B)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, multiplied by 

24 the fraction specified in paragraph (3)(B)’’ after ‘‘month’’. 
3

•HR 3623 IH 

1 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to single-employer plans the termi3 nation date (as defined in section 4048 of the Employee 

4 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) for which occurs 

5 after December 31, 2001.

Æ
# Official Journal C 280/2023

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 280 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 669 August 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 280

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 669 August 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 280/01 | Euro exchange rates – 8 August 2023 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2023/C 280/01

Euro exchange rates – 8 August 2023

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 280/02 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11130 – SONAE / BKCF / BKSA / UNIVERSO IME / JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 280/03 | Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 4 |
| 2023/C 280/04 | Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 8 |
| 2023/C 280/05 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector, as referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 13 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2023/C 280/02

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11130 – SONAE / BKCF / BKSA / UNIVERSO IME / JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

2

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2023/C 280/03

Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

4

2023/C 280/04

Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

8

2023/C 280/05

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector, as referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

13

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4477

ERNESTO CORTES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CR-00-394)

Submitted: January 23, 2002

Decided: February 11, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Robert L. Flax, FLAX & STOUT, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.

Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Gregg R. Nivala, Assistant

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Ernesto Cortes appeals the district court’s judgment imposing on

him numerous eighteen-month sentences to be served concurrently

following his jury convictions for five counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1344 (West 2000), four counts of mail fraud on

a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West

2000), thirteen counts of forgery of an endorsement on treasury

checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 510 (West 2000), and four

counts of theft of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 641 (West 2000). Cortes argues that the district court impermissibly

commented on the evidence and the verdict was not based upon sufficient evidence. He also challenges his sentencing, claiming that the

trial court erred in enhancing his sentence for obstruction of justice

and for engaging in more than minimal planning in the perpetration

of his crimes, and failing to reduce his sentence for family responsibilities. Because our review of the record discloses no reversible

error, we affirm Cortes’ conviction and sentence. 

Cortes argues that the court’s comments during trial were prejudicial. The record, however, discloses that the court properly interrupted

once to make a helpful suggestion to the defense and a second time

to make a ruling on the admissibility of evidence, neither of which

was an abuse of discretion. United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768 (4th

Cir. 1983) (providing standard). 

Cortes also attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to support the

jury’s verdict. We have reviewed the record, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we find sufficient evidence to support Cortes’ convictions. See Glasser v. United

States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). 

Regarding Cortes’ claim that he was improperly sentenced, we

have considered his sentence under the guidelines and find no error.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. CORTES
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         2,715,150
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                        2,707,267
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                          2,706,059
<EQUITIES>                                     981,163
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  451,437
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               4,138,659
<CASH>                                         282,277
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              34,552
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       2,305,365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,687,986
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,568,464
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            110,336
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          836,352
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                509,128
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,687,986
<PREMIUMS>                                   2,752,914
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            290,417
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  62,072
<BENEFITS>                                   1,406,297
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    644,754
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (177,472)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (177,472)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (177,472)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 120,777
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            660,296
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             511,540
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               106,319
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                163,214
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
§ 121.689 Flight release form: Supplemental operations. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the flight release may be in any form but must contain at least the following information concerning each flight: ( 1 ) Company or organization name.
( 2 ) Make, model, and registration number of the aircraft being used.
( 3 ) Flight or trip number, and date of flight.
( 4 ) Name of each flight crewmember, flight attendant, and pilot designated as pilot in command.
( 5 ) Departure airport, destination airports, alternate airports, and route.
( 6 ) Minimum fuel supply (in gallons or pounds).
( 7 ) A statement of the type of operation (e.g., IFR, VFR).
( 8 ) For each flight released as an ETOPS flight, the ETOPS diversion time for which the flight is released.
( b ) The aircraft flight release must contain, or have attached to it, weather reports, available weather forecasts, or a combination thereof, for the destination airport, and alternate airports, that are the latest available at the time the release is signed. It may include any additional available weather reports or forecasts that the pilot in command considers necessary or desirable.
( c ) Each certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations under the rules of this part applicable to supplemental operations shall comply with the dispatch or flight release forms required for scheduled operations under this subpart.
[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19226, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-253, 61 FR 2615, Jan. 26, 1996; Amdt. 121-329, 72 FR 1883, Jan. 16, 2007]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10562]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-1874-001]


New England Power Pool; Notice of Filing

April 24, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 6, 2000, the New England Power Pool 
Participants Committee filed an amendment to its filing dated March 13, 
2000 in the above-referenced docket.
    The NEPOOL Participants Committee states that copies of this filing 
have been sent to the New England state governors and regulatory 
commissions and the Participants in the New England Power Pool.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before May 4, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-10562 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
NUMBER 13-23-00268-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

GERALD MORA, Appellant,

v.

CHRISTOPHER DORSEY, Appellee.

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT 

OF BEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

On June 22, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal. On November 29, 2023, the 

Clerk of the Court notified appellant that his amended appellant’s brief did not comply with 

the applicable rules of appellate procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g). On December 

22, 2023, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that his brief had not been properly filed 

as instructed, and warned appellant that if he did not explain his failure to properly file his 

brief within ten (10) days of the receipt of the notice, that the instant appeal would be 
2

dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 38.8(a)(1). On January 4, 2024, the Clerk of 

the Court issued a “Final Notice” to appellant, informing him that although he had filed a 

“Second Amend[ment] on the Statement of Facts,” he had failed to file an amended brief 

as requested. Appellant was notified that after ten (10) days from the receipt of the notice, 

his appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution if the noted defect was not cured. 

See id. 42.3(b), (c). On February 6, 2024, the Clerk of the Court again issued a “Final 

Notice” to appellant, notifying him that he had still not filed an amended brief as requested, 

and informing him that he had ten (10) days from receipt of the notice to cure the defect 

or his appeal would be dismissed. Id. And on March 4, 2024, the Clerk of the Court again 

issued the same “Final Notice” to appellant alerting him as to the defective brief and 

warning him that failure to cure the defect would result in a dismissal of this appeal for 

want of prosecution. Id. This last letter was received by certified mail on March 22, 2024.

Appellant has failed to file an amended brief as requested and has otherwise not 

responded to the notices from the Clerk requiring a response or taken other appropriate 

action within the time specified. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See id.

L. ARON PEÑA JR.

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

18th day of April, 2024.
24930 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 00–34]

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation

Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

publishing the unclassified text of a

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

This is published to fulfill the

requirements of section 155 of Public

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604–

6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to

the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, Transmittal 00–34 with

attached transmittal, policy justification,

and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: April 24, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5001–10–C

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices 24931

24932 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices 24933

24934 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices

[FR Doc. 00–10576 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–C
<PAGE>

                       AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT is made this 17th day of June, 1996, and effective as of 
January 1, 1994, by and between United Asset Management Corporation, a 
Delaware Corporation (the "Company") and David I. Russell (the "Consultant").

                                  BACKGROUND

     1.  The parties hereto are parties to a Consulting Agreement dated as of 
January 1, 1993 (the "Agreement").

     2.  The initial term ("Term") of the Agreement expired as of December 
31, 1993.

     3.  Since the expiration of the Term, the parties have elected to 
continue their relationship governed by the terms of the Agreement.

     4.  The parties wish to memorialize the terms of their relationship by 
amending the Agreement to provide for the automatic renewal of the Term on a 
yearly basis and to state certain other amendments thereto

                                   AGREEMENT

     For value received the parties hereby agree that the Agreement shall be 
amended as follows:

     1.  Paragraph 1 of the Agreement is amended by adding the following 
sentence at the end of the paragraph:

         "The Term shall be automatically renewed for an additional Term of 
         one year on December 31 of each year, unless earlier terminated by 
         written notice by either party hereto in accordance with the 
         provisions of Paragraph 4."

     2.  Paragraph 2 of the Agreement is amended by adding the following 
clause to the last sentence of the paragraph:

         ", as may be amended from time to time by agreement of the parties."

     3.  The penultimate sentence of Paragraph 3 of the Agreement is amended 
so as to read in its entirety as follows:

         "Services and expenses shall be invoiced on a quarterly basis to the 
         attention of William H. Park."




<PAGE>

    4.  Paragraph 5 is amended by adding the following at the end of 
subparagraph (g) thereof:

         "and such other locations as the Company and the Consultant agree."

     All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full 
force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment, to take 
effect as of January 1, 1994.



                                        CONSULTANT


                                        /s/ David I. Russell
                                        ------------------------------
                                        David I. Russell



                                        UNITED ASSET MANAGEMENT
                                        CORPORATION


                                     By: /s/ William H. Park
                                        ------------------------------
                                        William H. Park
                                        Executive Vice President




                                      2
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Diane Knowles, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Diane S. Knowles   
|    |  | Diane S. Knowles       
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | March 23, 2004         



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.