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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Trade Commission

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Renee Chapman, Contact Representative, Federal Trade Commission, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room H-303, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3100.

By Direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-20023 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
# Az Európai Unió C 198/2004

| | ISSN 1725-518X |
| --- | --- |
| Az Európai Unió
  Hivatalos Lapja | C 198 |
| | |
| Magyar nyelvű kiadás | Tájékoztatások és közlemények | 47. évfolyam2004. augusztus 5. |

ISSN 1725-518X

Az Európai Unió

Hivatalos Lapja

C 198

Magyar nyelvű kiadás

Tájékoztatások és közlemények

47. évfolyam2004. augusztus 5.

---

| Közleményszám | Tartalom | Oldal |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Információ |
| | Bizottság |
| 2004/C 198/1 | Euró átváltási árfolyamok | 1 |

Közleményszám

Tartalom

Oldal

I   Információ

Bizottság

2004/C 198/1

Euró átváltási árfolyamok

1

| HU | |
| --- | --- |

HU

---

I Információ

Bizottság

| 5.8.2004 | HU | Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja | C 198/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2004

HU

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja

C 198/1

---

Euró átváltási árfolyamok (1)

2004. augusztus 4.

(2004/C 198/01)

1 euró=

| | Pénznem | Átváltási árfolyam |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | USA dollár | 1,1983 |
| JPY | Japán yen | 133,72 |
| DKK | Dán korona | 7,4352 |
| GBP | Angol font | 0,65960 |
| SEK | Svéd korona | 9,1938 |
| CHF | Svájci frank | 1,5394 |
| ISK | Izlandi korona | 86,33 |
| NOK | Norvég korona | 8,4145 |
| BGN | Bulgár leva | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Ciprusi font | 0,57940 |
| CZK | Cseh korona | 31,769 |
| EEK | Észt korona | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Magyar Forint | 250,14 |
| LTL | Litván litász/lita | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Lett lats | 0,6527 |
| MTL | Máltai líra | 0,4245 |
| PLN | Lengyel zloty | 4,4350 |
| ROL | Román lej | 40 954 |
| SIT | Szlovén tolar | 240,0100 |
| SKK | Szlovák korona | 40,120 |
| TRL | Török líra | 1 782 400 |
| AUD | Ausztrál dollár | 1,7079 |
| CAD | Kanadai dollár | 1,5844 |
| HKD | Hong Kong-i dollár | 9,3465 |
| NZD | Új-zélandi dollár | 1,8624 |
| SGD | Szingapúri dollár | 2,0667 |
| KRW | Dél-Koreai won | 1 399,08 |
| ZAR | Dél-Afrikai rand | 7,5483 |

Pénznem

Átváltási árfolyam

USD

USA dollár

1,1983

JPY

Japán yen

133,72

DKK

Dán korona

7,4352

GBP

Angol font

0,65960

SEK

Svéd korona

9,1938

CHF

Svájci frank

1,5394

ISK

Izlandi korona

86,33

NOK

Norvég korona

8,4145

BGN

Bulgár leva

1,9558

CYP

Ciprusi font

0,57940

CZK

Cseh korona

31,769

EEK

Észt korona

15,6466

HUF

Magyar Forint

250,14

LTL

Litván litász/lita

3,4528

LVL

Lett lats

0,6527

MTL

Máltai líra

0,4245

PLN

Lengyel zloty

4,4350

ROL

Román lej

40 954

SIT

Szlovén tolar

240,0100

SKK

Szlovák korona

40,120

TRL

Török líra

1 782 400

AUD

Ausztrál dollár

1,7079

CAD

Kanadai dollár

1,5844

HKD

Hong Kong-i dollár

9,3465

NZD

Új-zélandi dollár

1,8624

SGD

Szingapúri dollár

2,0667

KRW

Dél-Koreai won

1 399,08

ZAR

Dél-Afrikai rand

7,5483

---

(1)

Forrás: Az Európai Központi Bank (ECB) átváltási árfolyama.

---
#### § 4281.2 Definitions.

The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: annuity, employer, ERISA, fair market value, IRS, insurer, irrevocable commitment, mass withdrawal, multiemployer plan, nonforfeitable benefit, normal retirement age, PBGC, person, plan, plan administrator, and plan year. In addition, for purposes of this part:

*Actuarial valuation* means a report submitted to a plan of a valuation of plan assets and liabilities that is performed in accordance with subpart B of this part.

*Available resources* means available resources as described in section 4245(b)(3) of ERISA.

*Benefits subject to reduction* means those benefits accrued under plan amendments (or plans) adopted after March 26, 1980, or under collective bargaining agreements entered into after March 26, 1980, that are not eligible for PBGC's guarantee under section 4022A(b) of ERISA.

*Financial assistance* means financial assistance from PBGC under section 4261 of ERISA.

*Insolvency benefit level* means the greater of the resource benefit level or the benefit level guaranteed by PBGC for each participant and beneficiary in pay status.

*Insolvency year* means insolvency year as described in section 4245(b)(4) of ERISA.

*Insolvent* means unable to pay benefits when due during the plan year.

*Pro rata* means that the required benefit reduction or payment must be allocated among affected participants in the same proportion that each such participant's nonforfeitable benefits under the plan bear to all nonforfeitable benefits of those participants under the plan.

*Reasonably expected to enter pay status* means, with respect to plan participants and beneficiaries, persons (other than those in pay status) who, according to plan records, are disabled, have applied for benefits, or have reached or will reach during the applicable period the normal retirement age under the plan, and any others whom it is reasonable for the plan sponsor to expect to enter pay status during the applicable period.

*Resource benefit level* means resource benefit level as described in section 4245(b)(2) of ERISA.

*Valuation date* means the last day of the plan year in which the plan terminates and the last day of each plan year thereafter.

[61 FR 34118, July 1, 1996, as amended at 84 FR 18725, May 2, 2019]
----

----

I Meddelanden

Kommissionen

----

Eurons växelkurs (1)

4 oktober 2004

(2004/C 246/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Källa: Referensväxelkurs offentliggjord av Europeiska centralbanken.

----

III Upplysningar

Europeiska byrån för uttagningsprov för rekrytering av personal EPSO

----

FÖRTECKNING ÖVER GODKÄNDA SÖKANDE

ALLMÄNT UTTAGNINGSPROV EPSO/B/10/03

(2004/C 246/02)

BITRÄDANDE ASSISTENTER (B 5/B 4)

(nederländskspråkiga)

inom området för produktionssamordning

inom området för korrekturläsning

----

Kommissionen

----

UTTAGNINGSKOMMITTÉNS SAMMANSÄTTNING

ALLMÄNT UTTAGNINGSPROV EPSO/B/10/03

(2004/C 246/03)

BITRÄDANDE ASSISTENTER (B 5/B 4) INOM OMRÅDENA FÖR PRODUKTIONSSAMORDNING OCH KORREKTURLÄSNING

----
#### WICKENS v CARPENTER

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Washington Co

Decided March 12, 1930

H. S. Dyar, Marietta, for Wickens.

C. T. O’Neill, Marietta and E. F. Folger Marietta, for Carpenter.

*345We find no prejudicial error in the record and the judgment is affirmed.

MIDDLETON, P. J., and MAUCK, J., Concur.
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3424 — CIBA / RAISIO CHEMICALS)

(2004/C 175/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 26 May 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

CELEX: subscriber information

http://publications.eu.int/general/en/eulaw_en.htm

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                2442
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      4298
<PP&E>                                               62480
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       66778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 4794
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                              9040
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         66778
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       (34695)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (34695)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (34695)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
PROMISSORY NOTE



$5,500.00                                                        March 23, 1999


        The undersigned, Navis Technologies, LTD ("Payor"), promises to pay to
John R. Varsames ("Payee") or order the principal sum of five thousand five
hundred and 00/100 DOLLARS ($5,500.00) with interest accruing on the unpaid
principal balance at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, the entire
principal balance plus accrued interest being due and payable on demand.

        Such payment(s) shall be made at Payee's residence located at
Burlington, Vermont, or at such other place as the Payee hereof may designate in
writing, and such payments and any other sum due hereunder shall be made in
lawful money of the United States of America.

        This Note may be prepaid without penalty.

        In the case of default, the Payor agrees to pay the reasonable cost of
collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

        Every maker, guarantor and endorser waives presentment, demand, protest,
and notice and agrees that the time of payment may be extended without notice or
previous consent.

                                                 Navis Technologies, LTD




ATTEST:    /S/                                   By:  /S/
       ---------------------------                  ---------------------------
       Peter M. Doremus, Secretary                  John R. Varsames, President




Paid in Full

Date:___________________

Signature:______________
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 4.143 Effects of changes or extensions of contracts, generally. ( a ) Sometimes an existing service contract is modified, amended, or extended in such a manner that the changed contract is considered to be a new contract for purposes of the application of the Act's provisions. The general rule with respect to such contracts is that, whenever changes affecting the labor requirements are made in the terms of the contract, the provisions of the Act and the regulations thereunder will apply to the changed contract in the same manner and to the same extent as they would to a wholly new contract. However, contract modifications or amendments (other than contract extensions) that are unrelated to the labor requirements of a contract will not be deemed to create a new contract for purposes of the Act. In addition, only significant changes related to labor requirements will be considered as creating new contracts. This limitation on the application of the Act has been found to be in accordance with the provisions of section 4(b) of the Act.
( b ) Also, whenever the term of an existing contract is extended, pursuant to an option clause or otherwise, so that the contractor furnishes services over an extended period of time, rather than being granted extra time to fulfill his original commitment, the contract extension is considered to be a new contract for purposes of the application of the Act's provisions. All such “new” contracts as discussed above require the insertion of a new or revised wage determination in the contract as provided in § 4.5.
#### § 4221.2 Definitions.

The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: ERISA, IRS, multiemployer plan, PBGC, plan, and plan sponsor.

In addition, for purposes of this part:

*Arbitrator* means an individual or panel of individuals selected according to this part to decide a dispute concerning withdrawal liability.

*Employer* means an individual, partnership, corporation or other entity against which a plan sponsor has made a demand for payment of withdrawal liability pursuant to section 4219(b)(1) of ERISA.

*Party* or *parties* means the employer and the plan sponsor involved in a withdrawal liability dispute.

*Withdrawal liability dispute* means a dispute described in § 4221.1(a) of this chapter.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 51 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 22, 2007 

Referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas high quality after school programs provide safe, 

challenging, engaging, and fun learning experiences to 

help children and youth develop their social, emotional, 

physical, cultural, and academic skills; 

Whereas high quality after school programs support working 

families by ensuring that the children in such families are 

safe and productive after the regular school day ends; 

Whereas high quality after school programs build stronger 

communities by involving the Nation’s students, parents, 

business leaders, and adult volunteers in the lives of the 

Nation’s youth, thereby promoting positive relationships 

among children, youth, families, and adults; 

Whereas high quality after school programs engage families, 

schools, and diverse community partners in advancing the 

well-being of the Nation’s children; 

Whereas ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration of 

after school programs held on October 18, 2007, proVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:02 Oct 23, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SC51.RFH SC51

bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

SCON 51 RFH 

motes the critical importance of high quality after school 

programs in the lives of children, their families, and their 

communities; 

Whereas more than 28,000,000 children in the United States 

have parents who work outside the home and 14,300,000 

children in the United States have no place to go after 

school; and 

Whereas many after school programs across the United 

States are struggling to keep their doors open and their 

lights on: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress supports the goals and ideals 

3 of ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’ a national celebration of after 

4 school programs. 

Passed the Senate October 18, 2007. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### Nancy Lopez, Respondent, v Pablo Lopez, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 464]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County *72(Walter Tolub, J.), entered February 10, 1998, *inter alia,*dissolving the parties’ marriage and directing defendant to pay plaintiff $500 a month maintenance for a period of 7 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the circumstances presented, particularly the limited income available to plaintiff in relation to defendant’s established annual earnings, the challenged maintenance award fairly balances plaintiff’s reasonable needs against defendant’s ability to pay therefor, and is otherwise equitable (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; *see, Hartog v Hartog,*85 NY2d 36, 52). Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136312 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 136312 

 COA: 275209 

Macomb CC: 2005-005152-FC 

LEE PREMISE MANUEL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 11, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0721 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 29, 2008 

 Clerk
§ 4211.4 Contributions for purposes of the numerator and denominator of the allocation fractions. ( a ) *In general.* Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, each of the allocation fractions used in the presumptive, modified presumptive and rolling-5 methods is based on contributions that certain employers have made to the plan for a 5-year period. ( 1 ) The numerator of the allocation fraction, with respect to a withdrawing employer, is based on the “sum of the contributions required to be made” or the “total amount required to be contributed” by the employer for the specified period.
( 2 ) The denominator of the allocation fraction is based on contributions that certain employers have made to the plan for a specified period.
( b ) *Disregarding surcharges and contribution increases.* For each of the allocation fractions used in the presumptive, modified presumptive and rolling-5 methods in determining the allocation of unfunded vested benefits to an employer, a plan in endangered or critical status must disregard: ( 1 ) *Surcharge.* Any surcharge under section 305(e)(7) of ERISA and section 432(e)(7) of the Code.
( 2 ) *Contribution increase.* Any increase in the contribution rate or other increase in contribution requirements that goes into effect during plan years beginning after December 31, 2014, so that a plan may meet the requirements of a funding improvement plan under section 305(c) of ERISA and section 432(c) of the Code or a rehabilitation plan under section 305(e) of ERISA and 432(e) of the Code, except to the extent that one of the following exceptions applies pursuant to section 305(g)(3) or (4) of ERISA and section 432(g)(3) or (4) of the Code: ( i ) The increases in contribution requirements are due to increased levels of work, employment, or periods for which compensation is provided.
( ii ) The additional contributions are used to provide an increase in benefits, including an increase in future benefit accruals, permitted by section 305(d)(1)(B) or (f)(1)(B) of ERISA and section 432(d)(1)(B) or (f)(1)(B) of the Code.
( iii ) The withdrawal occurs on or after the expiration date of the employer's collective bargaining agreement in effect in the plan year the plan is no longer in endangered or critical status, or, if earlier, the date as of which the employer renegotiates a contribution rate effective after the plan year the plan is no longer in endangered or critical status.
( c ) *Simplified methods.* See §§ 4211.14 and 4211.15 for simplified methods of meeting the requirements of this section.
[86 FR 1271, Jan. 8, 2021]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XUQIANG ZHANG, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70080 

Agency No. A087-866-963 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Xuqiang Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-70080 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility 

determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies in Zhang’s evidence regarding the time frame of his 

detention, whether he reported to the police as required, and whether he needed

stitches. See id. at 1047-48 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the 

totality of the circumstances). Zhang’s explanations do not compel a contrary 

conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence 

of credible testimony, Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See

Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). In light of this 

disposition, we need not reach his remaining contentions regarding the merits of 

his claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts 

and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they 

reach).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Zhang’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and 

Zhang does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the 

conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in China. See
3 16-70080 

Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.