alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4041A.22 Payment of benefits. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b), the plan sponsor shall pay any benefit attributable to employer contributions, other than a death benefit, only in the form of an annuity.
( b ) The plan sponsor may pay a benefit in a form other than an annuity if— ( 1 ) The plan distributes plan assets in accordance with subpart D of this part;
( 2 ) The PBGC approves the payment of the benefit in an alternative form pursuant to § 4041A.27; or
( 3 ) The value of the entire nonforfeitable benefit does not exceed $1,750.
( c ) Except to the extent provided in the next sentence, the plan sponsor shall not pay benefits in excess of the amount that is nonforfeitable under the plan as of the date of termination, unless authorized to do so by the PBGC pursuant to § 4041A.27. Subject to the restriction stated in paragraph (d) of this section, however, the plan sponsor may pay a qualified preretirement survivor annuity with respect to a participant who died after the date of termination.
( d ) The payment of benefits subject to reduction shall be discontinued to the extent provided in § 4281.31 if the plan sponsor determines, in accordance with § 4041A.24, that the plan's assets are insufficient to provide all nonforfeitable benefits.
( e ) The plan sponsor shall, to the extent provided in § 4281.41, suspend the payment of nonguaranteed benefits if the plan sponsor determines, in accordance with § 4041A.25, that the plan is insolvent.
( f ) The plan sponsor shall, to the extent required by § 4281.42, make retroactive payments of suspended benefits if it determines under that section that the level of the plan's available resources requires such payments.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). E N / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T SK Y E TA Y LO R, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. V O L K S W A G E N O F A M E R IC A , IN C . ; et a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 35343 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 8 4 9 - RSL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R obe rtS . L a s ni k, C hi e f D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 16, 2010 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , P R E G E R S O N , an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S k y e T a y lo rap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s u m m aryju d g m e n t in hi s a nt i trus ta c t i on a l l e gi ng de f e ndant s vi ol a t e d the S he rm an A nt i - T rus tA c t , 15



# FI LED APR01 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSE N / Res ea r ch 09- 35343 2 U . S . C . § 1. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo, B e e ne v . T

e rhune , 3 8 0 F. 3 d1 1 4 9 , 1 1 5 0 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y g ran t edsu m m ary j u d g m en tt o d efen d an t s b ecau se T ayl o r fai l edt o rai se a tri ab l e i ssu e as t o w h eth er d efen d an t s’ g eo g rap h i c sal esl i m i tpo l i cyi m po se s “ an un re as on abl e r es tra i nton com pet i t i on . ” B u si n ess E lecs. C o rp . v. Sh a rp E lecs. C o rp . , 48 5 U . S . 71 7, 72 3, 73 5-36 (198 8) (“ [A ] vert i ca l r e s tr a in t is n o t ille g a l per s e un l es s i ti ncl ud es som e a gree m enton pri ce or pri ce le v e ls .” ) ; J

B L E nte rs . , I

nc . v . J hi rm ac k E nte rs . , I

nc . , 69 8 F . 2d 10 11 , 10 17 (9th C i r. 1983) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tm a rke ts ha r e s of af e w pe r c e nt a ge poi nt s “ ar e t oo s m a l l f or a nyr e s tr a i nton i ntr abr a nd c om pe t i t i on t o ha ve as ubs t ant i a l l ya dve r s e e f f e c ton i nt erbrand com pet i t i on ”) . T ay l or’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. A FFI R M ED .
Date: December 16, 2011 

Subject: The Effect on the MACT Floors for Mercury, Hydrogen Chloride, and Filterable 

Particulate Matter Emissions of Non-Low Rank Virgin Coal-Fired EGUs for 

Boilers Based on Rated Capacities of ≥125 MW Capacity or <125 MW. 

From: Jeffrey Cole (RTI International) 

To: Bill Maxwell 

 OAQPS/SPPD/ESG (D243-01) 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

The EPA requested that RTI calculate the Hg MACT floor values resulting from a 

subcategory containing only non-low rank, coal-fired electric utility steam generating units (i.e., 

boilers fired by either bituminous-, subbituminous-, and coal refuse-fired) for boilers with rated 

capacities of ≥125 MW or <125 MW. EPA wanted RTI to calculate the potential MACT floors 

for mercury (Hg), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and filterable particulate matter (fPM) under these 

scenarios. 

The Hg MACT floor values are based on 12 percent of their respective emissions data 

sets collected by EPA in the recent information collection request (ICR). The HCl and fPM 

MACT floor values are based on 12 percent of the number of these units in the EU industry 

population with capacities <125 MW (345 boilers) or ≥125 MW (699 boilers), respectively. The 

results of this analysis are presented in Table 1. 

Table 1. Hg, HCl, and fPM MACT Floor Values For Coal-Fired Boilers 

Based on Rated Capacity, ≥125 MW or <125 MW 

Pollutant Number of Boilers 

in MACT floor MACT floor value MACT floor units of measure 

Hg (boilers ≥ 125 MW) 27 0.64 lb/TBtu 

Hg (boilers < 125 MW) 19 0.17 lb/TBtu 

HCl (boilers ≥ 125 MW) 84 0.0020 lb/MMBtu 

HCl (boilers < 125 MW) 42 0.0040 lb/MMBtu 

fPM (boilers ≥ 125 MW) 84 0.030 lb/MMBtu 

fPM (boilers < 125 MW) 42 0.080 lb/MMBtu
795 A.2d 366

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Anthony Charles BRUNEIO, Respondent.

No. 740 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 5, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 2002, there having been filed with this Court by Anthony Charles Bruneio his verified *228Statement of Resignation dated March 4, 2002, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Anthony Charles Bruneio be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

#### § 20.83 DOL agency as paying agency of the debtor.

Whenever a salary offset is sought by another DOL or Federal agency from a paying DOL agency, the paying DOL agency should not initiate the requested offset until it has been provided by the creditor organization with an appropriate written certification as described in § 20.82(b). Where the creditor agency is not another DOL agency, the creditor agency must certify that its regulations under 5 U.S.C. 5514 have been approved by the Office of Personnel Management and that it, the creditor agency, has followed such regulations to the best of its information and belief. When the creditor agency is not also the paying DOL agency, the creditor agency should also be required to certify that if an administrative or judicial order is issued directing the paying DOL agency to pay a debtor an amount previously paid to the creditor agency, the creditor agency will reimburse the paying DOL agency or pay the debtor directly within 15 days of the date of the order.
# VA Northeast Ohio health care

Make an appointment

View all health services

Register for care

At VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, our health care teams are deeply experienced and guided by the needs of Veterans, their families, and caregivers. Find a health facility near you, and manage your health online. Sign up for community events and updates.

##               Locations

### 

**Main phone:**

**VA health connect:**

**Mental health care:**

## Manage your health online

##             Other services at VA Northeast Ohio health care    

##               Stories

### 

Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough visited VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System’s Louis Stokes VA Medical Center May 15, meeting with healthcare system leaders and engaging with staff and Veterans.

##               Events

### 

Join us at the North Royalton Health Fair & Family Expo for a day packed with fun and wellness! Lace up your running shoes for our annual 5K bear run, enjoy a complimentary pancake breakfast, give back to the community with our blood drive, and take advantage of free health screenings and much more. Don't miss out on this fantastic

**When**

Saturday, Nov 2, 20248:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.ET

## Get updates from VA Northeast Ohio health care

Feedback
§ 4233.8 Participant census data. An application for partition must include a copy of the census data used for the projections described in § 4233.7(a)(3) and (5), including: ( a ) Participant type (retiree, beneficiary, disabled, terminated vested, active, alternate payee).
( b ) Date of birth.
( c ) Gender.
( d ) Credited service for guarantee calculation (*i.e.,* number of years of participation).
( e ) Vested accrued monthly benefit before benefit suspension under section 305(e)(9) of ERISA.
( f ) Vested accrued monthly benefit after benefit suspension under section 305(e)(9) of ERISA.
( g ) Monthly benefit guaranteed by PBGC (determined under the terms of the original plan without respect to benefit suspensions).
( h ) Benefit commencement date (for participants in pay status and others for which the reported benefit is not payable at Normal Retirement Date).
( i ) For each participant in pay status— ( 1 ) Form of payment, and
( 2 ) Data relevant to the form of payment, including: ( i ) For a joint and survivor benefit, the beneficiary's benefit amount (before and after suspension) and the beneficiary's date of birth;
( ii ) For a Social Security level income benefit, the date of any change in the benefit amount, and the benefit amount after such change;
( iii ) For a 5-year certain or 10-year certain benefit (or similar benefit), the relevant defined period.
( iv ) For a form of payment not otherwise described in this section, the data necessary for the valuation of the form of payment, including the benefit amount before and after suspension.
( j ) If an actuarial increase for postponed retirement applies or if the form of annuity is a Social Security level income option, the monthly vested benefit payable at normal retirement age in normal form of annuity.
[80 FR 79694, Dec. 23, 2015]
§ 1952.3 Utah. ( a ) The Utah State plan received initial approval on January 10, 1973.
( b ) The Utah State plan received final approval on July 16, 1985.
( c ) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in *AFL-CIO* v. *Marshall,* compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, Utah, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 10 safety and 9 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comments and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements effective July 16, 1985.
( d ) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit *http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/utah.html .*
Exhibit 10.3


 





Loan Agreement(revised ver.)


 


THIS LOAN AGREEMENT is made by and between Clara
Ltd as lender (the "Lender") and Link Bit Co., Ltd. as borrower (the "Borrower") as follows in re changes to
the “Loan Agreement” dated on 26th March 2012 :


 


Article 1. (Loan) The Lender and the borrower
hereby agrees that the Loan was made in the below schedule.


	26 March 2012	100,000,000JPY	 
	29 November 2012	14,000,000JPY	 
	26 December 2012	18,000,000JPY	 
	30 January 2013	18,000,000JPY	Total amount : 150,000,000JPY.


 


Article 2.(Interest rate)


The interest of 1 % per annum.


 


Article 3.(Repayment method)


Divided payment starting
from the end of January 2015.


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this Agreement to be executed in one copy, affixing the respective name and seal, and the Lender retains the original and the Borrower
and the joint surety retain its copy.


 


January 29 2013


 


 


The Lender: 1-5-3 Sumiyoshi Hakata-ku Fukupka-shi


Clara Ltd.


Representative director Akira
TANABE


 


 


The Borrower: New Pier Takeshiba South Tower 21f,
1-16-1 Kaigan Minato-ku Tokyo


Link Bit Consulting Co., Ltd.


Representative director Shuya
WATANABE


Representative director Takashi
OZAWA


 


The joint surety 1-12 Tsutsujigaoka Aoba-ku Yokohama-shi
Kanagawa


Shuya WATANABE


 


2413, 3-5-3 Nishikanda Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo


Takashi OZAWA
(76 South. 999)

#### LAMB v. McGILL.

(7 Div. 463.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 1, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.

Stell Blake, of Roano.ke, for appellant. R. J. Hooten, of Roanoke, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### NESTER, Exr., etc. v. KARAVAS

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist., Franklin Co.

No 1772.

Decided Jan. 7, 1930

Harry P. Nester, Columbus, for Nester.

E. J. Greely, Cplumbus, for Karavas.

*450ALLREAD, J.

It is urged that the trial court erred in not sustaining the objection of counsel for the plaintiff in error to the second cause of action made at the close of the evidence. This objection was based upon a failure of evidence to show the adultery therein charged. It is true that there was no direct or positive evidence to prove adultery but the indirect evidence was sufficient to carry the question to the jury.

Coming to the sufficiency of the evidence we find that there is a conflict of evidence upon the issues tendered by the plaintiff; first, as to whether the defendant below knew of the fact that the women with whom he was associating was in fact the wife of the plaintiff, and as to whether his action was the cause of the separation. Upon both of these issues the jury had a right under the evidence to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and we find that the verdict, at least so far as it is in favor of the plaintiff, is sustained by the evidence and is not contrary to the weight thereof. There is enough evidence of a circumstantial nature in the case to justify the jury in finding that the association of the defendant, Louis, with the plaintiff’s wife was not innocent, as he claimed on the trial. The nature and extent of such associations and the gifts made by Louis to the plaintiff’s wife might, in the judgment of the jury, be sufficient to show that the defendant, Louis, was guilty of adultery, and such verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence.

The next question is as to the amount of the verdict. We have carefully examined this question and find that the amount is not so large as to justify the finding by this Court that the same was returned under the influence of passion and prejudice of the jury, or that the amount is excessive.

We therefore find that there is no prejudicial error in the reocrd and that the judgment must be affirmed.

KUNKLE, P.J., and HORNBECK, J., concur.
# EUR-Lex - 32000R1297 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R1297

**Council Regulation (EC) No 1297/2000 of 19 June 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products **

*
Official Journal L 153 , 26/06/2000 P. 0001 - 0004 *

Council Regulation (EC) No 1297/2000

of 19 June 2000

amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 26 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) It is in the interest of the Community to suspend partially or totally the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for a number of new products not listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96(1).

(2) A number of products which are referred to in the said Regulation should be withdrawn from the list in the Annex because it is no longer in the Community's interest to maintain suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties, or because they are exempt from duty under GATT or because the description needs to be altered in the light of technical developments.

(3) For the sake of clarity, products whose descriptions need to be altered should be regarded as new products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 is hereby amended as follows:

1. the products set out in Annex I to this Regulation are inserted;

2. the products for which the codes are set out in Annex II to this Regulation are deleted.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply with effect from 1 July 2000.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 19 June 2000.

For the Council

The President

L. Capoulas Santos

(1) OJ L 158, 29.6.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 20/2000 (OJ L 8, 12.1.2000, p. 1).

ANNEX I

>TABLE>

ANEXO II - /BILAG II - /ANHANG II - /ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ II - /ANNEX II - /ANNEXE II - /ALLEGATO II - /BIJLAGE II - /ANEXO II - /LIITE II - /BILAGA II

>TABLE>
STREET IMPROVEMENTS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

1900.]

Smith, Swing and Giffen, JJ.

#### Charles W. Baker v. Norwood (Vil.) et al.

Street Improvements — Unauthorized.

The statutes do not confer upon municipal corporations the right to improve private property for street purposes without condemnation or consent of the owner, and much less to assess upon individual property the cost of an improvement which was not desired nor solicited.

Appeal.

*C. W. Baker,*for plaintiff.

*Wm. R. Collins,*for the village.

*372Giffen, J.

The plaintiff alleges in his petition that the village of Norwood has, without his permission, and without condemning for public use, improved his certain lot of land for street purposes, and assessed the costs thereof upon his lots adjacent thereto, the prayer being for an injunction.

The answer admits the making of the improvements and levying the assessments, but avers that plaintiff was served with notice pursuant to the provisions of sec. 2304, Rev. Stat., and received the benefits.

The proof is that plaintiff was not served with any notice, nor did he in any manner consent to such improvements.

The village, in making the improvements upon the land of plaintiff and thus attempting to appropriate the' same for street purposes, was a trespasser.

The statute did not confer upon the village the right to improve the private property of the plaintiff, and much less to assess upon his individual property the cost of an improvement he never desired nor solicited. Harbeck v. Toledo, 11 Ohio St., 219.

Perpetual injunction allowed.
Argued and submitted February 3,

affirmed June 2, 1993

#### ROLANDO DORSEY GOMEZ, Appellant, *v.*Manfred (Fred) MAASS, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, *Respondent.*

(92C11371; CA A76309)

853 P2d 846

Garrett A. Richardson, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Stephanie S. Andrus, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were *578Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Durham, Judges.

RIGGS, J.

*579RIGGS, J.

Petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of *habeas corpus.*We review for errors of law, ORS 138.220, and affirm.

Petitioner is incarcerated in the Intensive Management Unit (IMU) of the Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP). An inmate is placed in IMU if OSP determines that he requires intensive supervision because of his characteristics and propensities. Petitioner challenged his placement in IMU through a petition for a writ of *habeas corpus.*The petition alleged that he was placed in IMU without due process and in violation of his right to be free of *ex post facto*laws. The trial court dismissed the petition *sua sponte.*ORS 34.370(6). The judgment stated that

> “[pllaintiff s petition for a writ of habeas corpus does not meet the minimum requirements to invoke habeas corpus jurisdiction.”

The judgment did not specify how petitioner failed to meet the minimum jurisdictional requirements.

On appeal, petitioner contends that the judgment did not conform to ORS 34.370(3), which requires that a judgment “explain the reason for the denial.” As we said in *Troxel v.*Maass, 120 Or App 397, 399, 853 P2d 294 (1993), a statement that a “petition ‘does not meet the minimum requirements to invoke habeas corpus jurisdiction’ is a conclusion, not a reason.” However, the error is harmless because, on its face, the petition lacked merit. Petitioner has no constitutional right to placement outside IMU. Therefore he has no right to a hearing concerning his placement. *Troxel v. Maass, supra,*120 Or App at 400. Also, because placement in IMU is not punitive, petitioner’s *ex post facto*argument fails.

Affirmed.