alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 4.170 Furnishing fringe benefits or equivalents. ( a ) *General.* Fringe benefits required under the Act shall be furnished, separate from and in addition to the specified monetary wages, by the contractor or subcontractor to the employees engaged in performance of the contract, as specified in the determination of the Secretary or his authorized representative and prescribed in the contract documents. Section 2(a)(2) of the Act provides that the obligation to furnish the specified benefits “may be discharged by furnishing any equivalent combinations of fringe benefits or by making equivalent or differential payments in cash under rules and regulations established by the Secretary.” The governing rules and regulations for furnishing such equivalents are set forth in § 4.177 of this subpart. An employer cannot offset an amount of monetary wages paid in excess of the wages required under the determination in order to satisfy his fringe benefit obligations under the Act, and must keep appropriate records separately showing amounts paid for wages and amounts paid for fringe benefits.
( b ) *Meeting the requirement, in general.* The various fringe benefits listed in the Act and in § 4.162(a) are illustrative of those which may be found to be prevailing for service employees in a particular locality. The benefits which an employer will be required to furnish employees performing on a particular contract will be specified in the contract documents. A contractor may dispose of certain of the fringe benefit obligations which may be required by an applicable fringe benefit determination, such as pension, retirement, or health insurance, by irrevocably paying the specified contributions for fringe benefits to an independent trustee or other third person pursuant to an existing “bona fide” fund, plan, or program on behalf of employees engaged in work subject to the Act's provisions. Where such a plan or fund does not exist, a contractor must discharge his obligation relating to fringe benefits by furnishing either an equivalent combination of “bona fide” fringe benefits or by making equivalent payments in cash to the employee, in accordance with the regulations in § 4.177.
§ 2590.715-2704 Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions. ( a ) *No preexisting condition exclusions.* A group health plan, or a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, may not impose any preexisting condition exclusion (as defined in § 2590.701-2).
( b ) *Examples.* The rules of paragraph (a) of this section are illustrated by the following examples (for additional examples illustrating the definition of a preexisting condition exclusion, *see* § 2590.701-3(a)(2)): Example 1. (i) *Facts*. A group health plan provides benefits solely through an insurance policy offered by Issuer *P*. At the expiration of the policy, the plan switches coverage to a policy offered by Issuer *N. N*'s policy excludes benefits for oral surgery required as a result of a traumatic injury if the injury occurred before the effective date of coverage under the policy. (ii) *Conclusion.* In this *Example 1,* the exclusion of benefits for oral surgery required as a result of a traumatic injury if the injury occurred before the effective date of coverage is a preexisting condition exclusion because it operates to exclude benefits for a condition based on the fact that the condition was present before the effective date of coverage under the policy. Therefore, such an exclusion is prohibited.
Example 2. (i) *Facts*. Individual *C* applies for individual health insurance coverage with Issuer *M. M* denies *C*'s application for coverage because a pre-enrollment physical revealed that *C* has type 2 diabetes. (ii) *Conclusion. See Example 2* in 45 CFR 147.108(a)(2) for a conclusion that *M*'s denial of *C*'s application for coverage is a preexisting condition exclusion because a denial of an application for coverage based on the fact that a condition was present before the date of denial is an exclusion of benefits based on a preexisting condition. Therefore, such an exclusion is prohibited.
( c ) *Applicability date.* The provisions of this section are applicable to group health plans and health insurance issuers for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017. Until the applicability date for this regulation, plans and issuers are required to continue to comply with the corresponding sections of 29 CFR part 2590, contained in the 29 CFR, parts 1927 to end, edition revised as of July 1, 2015.
[80 FR 72261, Nov. 18, 2015]
§ 4022.6 Annuity payable for total disability. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, an annuity which is payable (or would be payable after a waiting period described in the plan, whether or not the participant is in receipt of other benefits during such waiting period), under the terms of a plan on account of the total and permanent disability of a participant which is expected to last for the life of the participant and which began on or before the termination date is considered to be a pension benefit.
( b ) In any case in which the PBGC determines that the standards for determining such total and permanent disability under a plan were unreasonable, or were modified in anticipation of termination of the plan, the disability benefits payable to a participant under such standard shall not be guaranteed unless the participant meets the standards of the Social Security Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder for determining total disability.
( c ) For the purpose of this section, a participant may be required, upon the request of the PBGC, to submit to an examination or to submit proof of continued total and permanent disability. If the PBGC finds that a participant is no longer so disabled, it may suspend, modify, or discontinue the payment of the disability benefit.
( d ) *PPA 2006 bankruptcy termination.* In a PPA 2006 bankruptcy termination, “bankruptcy filing date” is substituted for “termination date” in paragraph (a) of this section.
[61 FR 34028, July 1, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 16954, Apr. 8, 2002; 76 FR 34602, June 14, 2011]
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification ofFinancial Reports Pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350**

 

 

The undersigned hereby certifythat the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d) and that information contained inthat Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    | /s/ J.  Nicholas Bayne                                        |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | J. Nicholas  Bayne                                            |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer                                      |
|   |                                                          |
|   |                                                          |
|   | /s/ Kurt A.  Tornquist                                        |   |
|   | Kurt A.  Tornquist                                            |
|   | Senior Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|   |                                                          |
|   |                                                          |
|   | Dated: March  29, 2004                                        |

 

This certification is madesolely for purposes of 18 USC Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standardcontained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          11,360,979
<SECURITIES>                                     8,898,323
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       137,584
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                          24,168,914
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,089,882
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     961,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,673,504
<BONDS>                                          6,602,393
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                      8,383,562
<COMMON>                                            87,968
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,103,356
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,673,504
<SALES>                                          5,439,298
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,439,298
<CGS>                                            2,768,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,296,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 148,464
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,306,164)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (8,306,164)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,306,164)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,306,164)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (1.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.13)



</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ELLEN T. BURNS,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2024-1233

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 20-5933, Judge Michael P. Allen.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before PROST, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

TARANTO, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

The parties jointly move to remand this case to the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, stating:

Because neither [that court] nor the Board [of Veterans’ Appeals] addressed whether the 

Case: 24-1233 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 07/22/2024
2 BURNS v. MCDONOUGH

complications of diabetes reflected in Mr. Burns’s 

treatment records entitled him to an increase in his 

rating for service-connected diabetes in light of 

Part V.iii.11.2.c. of the M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual, the parties respectfully submit that 

a remand would conserve resources and promote 

judicial efficiency here. The parties further agree 

that, upon remand, the Veterans Court should address this theory of entitlement and determine 

whether any further proceedings are necessary to 

resolve Mrs. Burns’s accrued benefits claim.

Mot. at 5. 

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is remanded to 

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for 

further proceedings consistent with this order and the parties’ joint motion.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

July 22, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 22, 2024

Case: 24-1233 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 07/22/2024
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 8, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00593-CV

IN RE ELIZON MASTER PARTICIPATE TRUST I, U.S. BANK TRUST 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS OWNER TRUSTEE SUCCESSOR-ININTEREST TO NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC D/B/A MR. COOPER, 

Relator 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

 165th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-44204 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On July 30, 2019, relator Elizon Master Participate Trust I, U.S. Bank Trust 

National Association, as Owner Trustee Successor-In-Interest to Nationstar 
2 

Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.

See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Supp.); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the 

petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Ursula Hall, presiding judge 

of the 165th District Court of Harris County, to rule on relator’s motion for 

substituted service.

On July 30, 2019, Judge Hall signed an order granting the motion for 

substituted service. 

On August 2, 2019, relator filed a motion to dismiss its petition for writ of 

mandamus. 

We GRANT relator’s motion and DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus as moot.

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
#### § 458.34 Loans to officers or employees.

No labor organization shall directly or indirectly make any loan to any officer or employee of such organization which results in a total indebtedness on the part of such officer or employee to the labor organization in excess of $2,000.
#### In the Matter of Clarabelle K., Appellant, v Charles J. Christman, as Commissioner of the Otsego County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

Submitted May 28, 1996;

decided July 9, 1996

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely (CPLR 5513 [b]).
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Southwest Oregon PIEC Advisory Committee will meet on June 8, 2000 in Roseburg, Oregon at the Roseburg Bureau of Land Management Office at 777 NW Garden Valley Blvd. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and continue until 5 p.m. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Forest Service Roadless Initiative; (2) Public Comment; (3) Implementation Monitoring; (4) Refinement of Province Dead and Wood Policy; and (4) Current issues as perceived by Advisory Committee members.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this meeting to Roger Evenson, Province Advisory Committee Coordinator, USDA, Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest, 2900 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, Oregon 97470, phone (541) 957-3344.

      ( print page 32075)    
Dated: May 16, 2000.

Michael D. Hupp,

Acting Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 00-12738  Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
|   | Summit Machine Tool Manufacturing L.L.C. (f/k/a Summit Machine Tool Manufacturing Corp.) |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Pryor Chemical Company (f/k/a Pryor Plant Chemical Company, f/k/a LSB Financial Corp.) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | ThermaClime Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a ACP International Limited, f/k/a ACP Manufacturing Corp.) |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | CEPOLK Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a ThermalClime, Inc.; f/k/a LSB South America Corporation) |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | El Dorado Nitric Company (f/k/a El Dorado Nitrogen Company, f/k/a LSB Nitrogen Corporation, f/k/a LSB Import Corp.) |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Prime Holdings Corporation (f/k/a Tower IV Corporation, f/k/a LSB Leasing Corp.) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32


                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wizzard Software Corporation
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, Christopher J. Spencer, President, CEO and Treasurer
of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


Date: 11/12/04                           /s/Christopher J. Spencer
      --------                           -------------------------
                                         Christopher J. Spencer
                                         President, CEO, Treasurer and
                                         director
798 A.2d 1276

#### In Re ESTATE OF Stephen X. STEPHANO, Deceased. Appeal of Daniel Stephano Successor Trustee of the Trust Under Will of Stephen X. Stephano, Deceased.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 18, 2002.

Thomas A. Boulden, Norristown, for Daniel Stephano.

*599John Ellery Jennings, Norristown, for Stephen & Nicholas Pistolakis.

Michael H. Hynes, Norristown, for Penelope A. Blechstein.

Clifford Scott Meyer, for Penelope Turak.

Before: ZAPPALA, C.J., and CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR and EAKIN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently granted.

Justice NIGRO, dissents.
#### § 401.18 Office.

*Office* means the Office of Labor-Management Standards, United States Department of Labor.

[62 FR 6092, Feb. 10, 1997, as amended at 78 FR 8024, Feb. 5, 2013]
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Marine Petroleum Trust (the Company), does hereby
certify, to such officers knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004 (the Form
10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K. /s/ RON E. HOOPER  
 Dated: September 24, 2004 The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K
pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part
of the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Marine Petroleum Trust and will be retained by Marine Petroleum
Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
(78 South. 990)

#### CHOCTAW COAL & MINING CO. v. HOLMES.

(6 Div. 190.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 18, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; J. J.'Curtis, Judge.

Bankhead & Bankhead, of Jasper, for appellant. Leith & Gunn, of Jasper, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### § 452.94 Reasonable opportunity to vote.

The statutory protection of the right to vote implies that there must be a reasonable opportunity to vote. Thus, there is an obligation on the labor organization to conduct its periodic election of officers in such a way as to afford all its members a reasonable opportunity to cast ballots. A union may meet this obligation in a variety of ways, depending on factors such as the distance between the members' work site or homes and the polling place, the means of transportation available, the nature of the members' occupations, and their hours of work. A reasonable opportunity to vote may require establishing multiple polling places or the use of a mail ballot referendum when the members are widely dispersed. It would also be reasonable for the time period for voting to be extended to accommodate members who might otherwise be prevented from voting due to conflicting work schedules. Shortening the voting period by a late opening of the polls would not, in itself, be improper unless the intent or practical effect of such action is to deprive members of their right to vote.
#### WILLIAM COALE DEVELOPMENT CO v KENNEDY SAME v LEASURE WARREN GUARANTEE TITLE & MORTGAGE CO v WAY SAME v KENNEDY SAME v A T ROOT SAME v RUTH A ROOT SAME v BUSH SAME v PECK

Ohio Supreme Court

Nos 21825 to 32 Inc.

Decided Feb. 12, 1930

Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
Kruger. Brett (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Bob, Brett 

Delta concurs ... 

Regards, 

Sascha 

VanDerBellen, Alexander [sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com] 

Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:56 PM 

Kruger, Brett (OST); Finamore, Robert (OST) 

Anita Mosner (anita.mosner@hklaw.com) 

FW: SAA request 

From: Anita.Mosner@hklaw.com [mailto:Anita.Mosner@hklaw.com] 

Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:52 PM 

To: VanDerBelien, Alexander 

Subject: SAA request 

SaschaDOT is reviewing SAA's exemption renewal, and they are aware from our pleading that DL does not intend to pursue its 

objections to that application. Can you please send a quick email to Bob Finamore and Brett Kruger which confirms our 

understanding? The don't need anything fancy - I think a simple concurrence to this message would suffice. 

Their email addresses are: brett.kruger@dot.gov; robert.finamore@dot.gov 

Many thanks .. 

Anita 

Anita Mosner I Holland & Knight 

Partner 

2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100 I Washington DC 20006 

T: + 1.202.419.2604 I F: +1.202.955.5564 

M: +1.202.378.0833 

anita.mosner@hklaw.com I www.hklaw.com 

Add to address book 

To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we inform you that 

any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and 

cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal 

Revenue Code. 

1