alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4044.17 Subclasses. ( a ) *General rule.* A plan may establish one or more subclasses within any priority category, other than priority categories 1 and 2, which subclasses will govern the allocation of assets within that priority category. The subclasses may be based only on a participant's longer service, older age, or disability, or any combination thereof.
( b ) *Limitation.* Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, whenever the allocation within a priority category on the basis of the subclasses established by the plan increases or decreases the cumulative amount of assets that otherwise would be allocated to guaranteed benefits, the assets so shifted shall be reallocated to other participants' benefits within the priority category in accordance with the subclasses.
( c ) *Exception for subclasses in effect on September 2, 1974.* A plan administrator may allocate assets to subclasses within any priority category, other than priority categories 1 and 2, without regard to the limitation in paragraph (b) of this section if, on September 2, 1974, the plan provided for allocation of plan assets upon termination of the plan based on a participant's longer service, older age, or disability, or any combination thereof, and— ( 1 ) Such provisions are still in effect; or
( 2 ) The plan, if subsequently amended to modify or remove those subclasses, is re-amended to re-establish the same subclasses on or before July 28, 1981.
( d ) *Discrimination under Code.* Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, allocation of assets to subclasses established under this section is permitted only to the extent that the allocation does not result in discrimination prohibited under the Code and regulations thereunder.
#### § 2700.59 Failure to cooperate in discovery; sanctions.

Upon the failure of any person, including a party, to respond to a discovery request or upon an objection to such a request, the party seeking discovery may file a motion with the Judge requesting an order compelling discovery. If any person, including a party, fails to comply with an order compelling discovery, the Judge may make such orders with regard to the failure as are just and appropriate, including deeming as established the matters sought to be discovered or dismissing the proceeding in favor of the party seeking discovery. For good cause shown the Judge may excuse an objecting party from complying with the request.
# jfourtf) Court of^pealg ^an antonio, ®exas(
JUDGMENT No. 04-12-00861-CR Charles WILLIAMS, 

### Appellant

V. The STATE ofTexas, 

### Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010-CR-3503 

### Honorable MariaTeresa Herr, Judge Presiding BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ 

### In accordance with this court's opinion of this date, counsel's motion to withdraw is 

### GRANTED and thejudgment ofthe trial court is AFFIRMED. SIGNED October 9, 2013.


### Rebeca C. Martinez, ^stice
<PAGE>




                                                                      Exhibit 11


                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


LOSS PER SHARE

Computation of loss per share
(in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Nine months ended September 30,
                                                                  2002         2001
                                                                --------     --------
<S>                                                             <C>          <C>
Net loss ...................................................    $(26,468)    $(38,701)
                                                                ========     ========
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding ........      54,407       38,511
Weighted average shares of common stock held for former
    Women.com stockholders .................................         193          742
Weighted average shares of common stock held for former
    Promotions.com stockholders ............................           7         --
                                                                --------     --------
Adjusted weighted average shares of common stock outstanding
   used in computing basic and diluted net loss per share ..      54,607       39,253
                                                                ========     ========
Basic and diluted net loss per share .......................    $  (0.48)    $  (0.99)
                                                                ========     ========

</TABLE>
§ 4245.8 Financial assistance. ( a ) *Application for financial assistance.* If the plan sponsor of a plan determines that the plan's resource benefit level for an insolvency year is below the level of benefits guaranteed by PBGC or that the plan will be unable to pay guaranteed benefits when due for any month during the year, the plan sponsor must apply to PBGC for financial assistance pursuant to section 4261 of ERISA and in accordance with § 4281.47 of this chapter.
( b ) *Actuarial valuations and withdrawal liability.* The plan sponsor of an insolvent plan or a terminated plan that is expected to become insolvent under section 4245 of ERISA must— ( 1 ) File withdrawal liability information with PBGC in accordance with § 4041A.23 of this chapter. The filing under § 4041A.23(b) of this chapter must be not later than 180 days after the earlier of the end of the plan year in which the plan becomes insolvent or terminates and each plan year thereafter.
( 2 ) Have performed and file with PBGC actuarial valuations in accordance with § 4041A.24 of this chapter, except that if a plan is not terminated, the termination year valuation under § 4041A.24(a)(1) of this chapter must be performed for the plan for the plan year in which the plan becomes insolvent.
[84 FR 18725, May 2, 2019]
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 240 

Designating October 21 through October 27, 2007, as ‘‘National Save for 

Retirement Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2007 

Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. CONRAD) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JULY 11, 2007 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating October 21 through October 27, 2007, as 

‘‘National Save for Retirement Week’’. 

Whereas the cost of retirement continues to rise, in part, because people in the United States are living longer than 

ever before, the number of employers providing retiree 

health coverage continues to decline, and retiree health 

care costs continue to increase at a rapid pace; 

Whereas Social Security remains the bedrock of retirement 

income for the great majority of the people of the United 

States, but was never intended by Congress to be the sole 

source of retirement income for families; 

Whereas recent data from the Employee Benefit Research Institute indicates that, in the United States, less than 2⁄3


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

SRES 240 ATS 

of workers or their spouses are currently saving for retirement and that the actual amount of retirement savings of workers lags far behind the amount that is realistically needed to adequately fund retirement; 

Whereas many employees have available to them through 

their employers access to defined benefit and defined contribution plans to assist them in preparing for retirement; 

Whereas many employees may not be aware of their retirement savings options and may not have focused on the 

importance of and need for saving for their own retirement; 

Whereas many employees may not be taking advantage of 

workplace defined contribution plans at all or to the full 

extent allowed by the plans or under Federal law; and 

Whereas all workers, including public- and private-sector employees, employees of tax-exempt organizations, and selfemployed individuals, can benefit from increased awareness of the need to save for retirement and the availability of tax-advantaged retirement savings vehicles to 

assist them in saving for retirement: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates October 21 through October 27, 

3 2007, as ‘‘National Save for Retirement Week’’; 

4 (2) supports the goals and ideals of National 

5 Save for Retirement Week, including raising public 

6 awareness about the importance of adequate retireVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:00 Jul 12, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR240.ATS SR240

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

SRES 240 ATS 

1 ment savings and the availability of employer-spon2 sored retirement plans; and 

3 (3) calls on the Federal Government, States, lo4 calities, schools, universities, nonprofit organizations, 

5 businesses, other entities, and the people of the 

6 United States to observe the week with appropriate 

7 programs and activities with the goal of increasing 

8 the retirement savings of all the people of the United 

9 States. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### § 500.2 Compliance with State laws and regulations.

The Act and these regulations are intended to supplement State law; compliance with the Act or these regulations shall not excuse any

individual from compliance with appropriate State law or regulation.
§ 500.102 Applicability of vehicle safety standards. ( a ) Any passenger automobile or station wagon used or caused to be used by any farm labor contractor, agricultural employer or agricultural association to transport any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker shall meet the vehicle safety standards prescribed in § 500.104.
( b ) Any vehicle, other than a passenger automobile or station wagon, used or caused to be used by any farm labor contractor, agricultural employer or agricultural association to transport any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker pursuant to a day-haul operation shall be subject to the safety standards prescribed under § 500.105.
( c ) Any vehicle, other than a passenger automobile or station wagon, which has been or is being used or caused to be used for any trip of a distance greater than 75 miles by a farm labor contractor, agricultural employer or agricultural association to transport any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker, shall be subject to the safety standards prescribed under § 500.105. One trip may have numerous intermediate stops.
( d ) Any vehicle, other than a passenger automobile or station wagon, used or caused to be used by any farm labor contractor, agricultural employer or agricultural association to transport any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker in any manner not addressed by paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section shall meet the vehicle safety standards prescribed in § 500.104.
( e ) The use or intended use of a vehicle, other than a passenger automobile or station wagon, for transportation of the type identified in § 500.102(b) or § 500.102(c) will make the vehicle subject to the standards prescribed under § 500.105, so long as the vehicle is used for transportation subject to the Act and these regulations.
( f ) Any pickup truck used only for transportation subject to § 500.104 when transporting passengers only within the cab shall be treated as a station wagon.
( g ) Pursuant to section 401(b)(2)(C) of the Act, standards prescribed by the Secretary shall be in addition to, and shall not supersede nor modify, any standards prescribed under part II of the Interstate Commerce Act and any successor provision of subtitle IV of title 49, U.S. Code or the regulations issued thereunder which is independently applicable to transportation to which this section applies. A violation of any such standard shall also constitute a violation of the Act and these regulations.
[48 FR 36741, Aug. 12, 1983; 48 FR 38380, Aug. 23, 1983]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARKELL JAKAR BROWN
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee.

No. 4D2022

- 2967

[ January 25, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Sherwood Bauer, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No.

18000109CFAXMX.

Cary Haughwout, Public Defender, and Mara C. Herbert, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach

, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, Senior Assistant Attorney General

, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER
, D AMOORGIAN and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50525 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. LUIS FERNANDO RAMIREZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:18

- CR

- 729

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Luis Fernando Ramirez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States , a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment , which he reserved the right to appeal when he conditionally pleaded guilty

. See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11(a)(2). Relying on Pereira v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Ramirez argues that his prior removal order was invalid because the notice to appear (NTA) was

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 6, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50525 Document: 00515335255 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2020No. 19

- 50525

2 defective for failing to include the date and time of his removal hearing. Ramirez therefore asserts that his prior removal could not support a conviction for illegal reentry under § 1326. He concedes that this challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Pedroza

- Rocha , 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19

- 6588), and Pierre

- Paul v. Barr , 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19

- 779), but he raises the issue to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is foreclosed by Pedroza

- Rocha and Pierre

- Paul . In the alternative, the Government requests an extension of time to file a brief. Summary affirmance is appropriate if “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The parties are correct that Ramirez’s arguments are foreclosed

. See Pedroza

- Rocha , 933 F.3d at 492

- 9 8

. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRA NTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-50525 Document: 00515335255 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2020
§ 553.28 Other compensatory time. ( a ) Compensatory time which is earned and accrued by an employee for employment in excess of a nonstatutory (that is, non-FLSA) requirement is considered “other” compensatory time. The term “other” compensatory time off means hours during which an employee is not working and which are not counted as hours worked during the period when used. For example, a collective bargaining agreement may provide that compensatory time be granted to employees for hours worked in excess of 8 in a day, or for working on a scheduled day off in a nonovertime workweek. The FLSA does not require compensatory time to be granted in such situations.
( b ) Compensatory time which is earned and accrued by an employee working hours which are “overtime” hours under State or local law, ordinance, or other provisions, but which are not overtime hours under section 7 of the FLSA is also considered “other” compensatory time. For example, a local law or ordinance may provide that compensatory time be granted to employees for hours worked in excess of 35 in a workweek. Under section 7(a) of the FLSA, only hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek are overtime hours which must be compensated at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay.
( c ) Similarly, compensatory time earned or accrued by an employee for employment in excess of a standard established by the personnel policy or practice of an employer, or by custom, which does not result from the FLSA provision, is another example of “other” compensatory time.
( d ) The FLSA does not require that the rate at which “other” compensatory time is earned has to be at a rate of one and one-half hours for each hour of employment. The rate at which “other” compensatory time is earned may be some lesser or greater multiple of the rate or the straight-time rate itself.
( e ) The requirements of section 7(o) of the FLSA, including the limitations on accrued compensatory time, do not apply to “other” compensatory time as described above.
§ 4044.56 XRA when a participant need not retire to receive a benefit. ( a ) *Applicability.* Except as provided in § 4044.57, the plan administrator shall determine the XRA under this section when plan provisions or established plan practice do not require a participant to retire from his or her job to begin receiving his or her early retirement benefit.
( b ) *Data needed.* The plan administrator shall determine for each participant— ( 1 ) The participant's URA; and
( 2 ) The participant's earliest retirement age at valuation date.
( c ) *Procedure.* Participants in this case are always assigned to the high retirement rate category and therefore the plan administrator shall use table II-C (Expected Retirement Ages for Individuals in the High Category) in § 4044.58 to determine the XRA. The plan administrator shall determine the XRA from table II-C by using the participant's URA and earliest retirement age at termination date.
[61 FR 34059, July 1, 1996, as amended at 89 FR 48306, June 6, 2024]
§ 4281.46 Contents of notice of insolvency benefit level. ( a ) *Notice to PBGC.* A notice of insolvency benefit level required by § 4281.45(a) to be filed with PBGC must contain the information and certification specified in the notice of insolvency benefit level instructions on PBGC's website (*www.pbgc.gov*).
( b ) *Notice to participants and beneficiaries in or entering pay status.* A notice of insolvency benefit level required by § 4281.45(a) to be delivered to plan participants and beneficiaries in pay status or reasonably expected to enter pay status during the insolvency year must contain all of the following information— ( 1 ) The name of the plan.
( 2 ) The insolvency year for which the notice is being sent.
( 3 ) The monthly benefit that the participant or beneficiary may expect to receive during the insolvency year.
( 4 ) A statement that in subsequent plan years, depending on the plan's available resources, this benefit level may be increased or decreased but not below the level guaranteed by PBGC, and that the participant or beneficiary will be notified in advance of the new benefit level if it is less than the participant's full nonforfeitable benefit under the plan.
( 5 ) The amount of the participant's or beneficiary's monthly nonforfeitable benefit under the plan.
( 6 ) The amount of the participant's or beneficiary's monthly benefit that is guaranteed by PBGC.
( 7 ) The name, address, and telephone number of the plan administrator or other person designated by the plan sponsor to answer inquiries concerning benefits.
[84 FR 18726, May 2, 2019]
From: Gossett, Stephen R [mailto:srgosset@eastman.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:08 AM 

To: Jones, Toni 

Subject: Supplemental Submittal Eastman CISWI Petition 

Per our recent discussions, I am sending on behalf of Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman) the 

attached documents to supplement Eastman’s petition to EPA (dated April 5, 2013) to reconsider, 

amend, and administratively stay certain provisions of the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units (CISWI) final rule dated February 7, 2013. If there are any questions concerning this 

submittal, please contact me at (423)229-2327. 

Steve Gossett 

Eastman Chemical Company 

423-229-2327
§ 503.5 Temporary need. ( a ) An employer seeking certification under 20 CFR part 655, subpart A, must establish that its need for non-agricultural services or labor is temporary, regardless of whether the underlying job is permanent or temporary.
( b ) The employer's need is considered temporary if justified to the CO as one of the following: A one-time occurrence; a seasonal need; a peakload need; or an intermittent need, as defined by DHS regulations.
#### § 778.412 Relationship between amount guaranteed and range of hours employee may be expected to work.

While the guaranteed pay may not cover more than 60 hours, the contract may guarantee pay for a lesser number of hours. In order for a contract to qualify as a bona fide contract for an employee whose duties necessitate irregular hours of work, the number of hours for which pay is guaranteed must bear a reasonable relation to the number of hours the employee may be expected to work. A guaranty of pay for 60 hours to an employee whose duties necessitate irregular hours of work which can reasonably be expected to range no higher than 50 hours would not qualify as a bona fide contract under this section. The rate specified in such a contract would be wholly fictitious and therefore would not be a “regular rate” as discussed above. When the parties enter into a guaranteed pay contract, therefore, they should determine, as far as possible, the range of hours the employee is likely to work. In deciding the amount of the guaranty they should not choose a guaranty of pay to cover the maximum number of hours which the employee will be likely to work at any time but should rather select a figure low enough so that it may reasonably be expected that the rate will be operative in a significant number of workweeks. In both *Walling* v. *A. H. Belo Co.,* 316 U.S. 624 and *Walling* v. *Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.,* 331 U.S. 17 the court found that the employees did actually exceed the number of hours (60 and 84 respectively) for which pay was guaranteed on fairly frequent occasions so that the hourly rate stipulated in the contract in each case was often operative and did actually control the compensation received by the employees. In cases where the guaranteed number of hours has not been exceeded in a significant number of workweeks, this fact will be weighed in the light of all the other facts and circumstances pertinent to the agreement before reaching a conclusion as to its effect on the validity of the pay arrangement. By a periodic review of the actual operation of the contract the employer can determine whether a stipulated contract rate reasonably expected by the parties to be operative in a significant number of workweeks is actually so operative or whether adjustments in the contract are necessary to ensure such an operative rate.