alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4281.43 Notice of insolvency. ( a ) *Requirement of notice.* The plan sponsor of a plan that determines that the plan is insolvent in the current plan year or is expected to be insolvent in the next plan year must file with PBGC a notice of insolvency containing the information described in § 4281.44(a) and issue to plan participants and beneficiaries a notice of insolvency containing the information described in § 4281.44(b). Once notices of insolvency with respect to a plan have been provided as required, no notice of insolvency need be provided with respect to the plan for any subsequent year. A notice of insolvency may be combined with a notice of insolvency benefit level under § 4281.45 for the same plan year.
( b ) *When to provide notice.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the plan sponsor must file or issue the notices of insolvency under paragraph (a) of this section by the later of— ( i ) Ninety (90) days before the beginning of the insolvency year; or
( ii ) Thirty (30) days after the date the insolvency determination is made.
( 2 ) The plan sponsor may deliver the notices of insolvency under paragraph (a) of this section to participants and beneficiaries in pay status concurrently with the first benefit payment made after the date the insolvency determination is made.
( c ) *Method of issuance to participants and beneficiaries.* The issuance of the notice of insolvency to participants and beneficiaries must be made by one of the following methods— ( 1 ) A method permitted under the rules in subpart B of part 4000 of this chapter.
( 2 ) For participants and beneficiaries, other than those in pay status or reasonably expected to enter pay status during the insolvency year for which the notice is given, and other than alternate payees, the plan sponsor may post the notice at participants' work sites or publish the notice in a union newsletter or in a newspaper of general circulation in the area or areas where participants reside. Except with respect to an alternate payee, notice to a participant is deemed notice to that participant's beneficiary or beneficiaries.
[84 FR 18726, May 2, 2019]
(79 South. 878)

#### KING v. STATE.

(6 Div. 459.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 14, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, J.

Appeal dismissed on motion of Attorney General.
----

----

I Informácie

Komisia

----

Výmenný kurz eura (1)

16. septembra 2004

(2004/C 232/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Zdroj: referenčný výmenný kurz publikovaný ECB.

----

III Oznámenia

Komisia

----

Zmena výzvy FP6-2003-SME-1

(Úradný vestník Európskej únie C 307 zo 17. decembra 2003)

(2004/C 232/02)

S odkazom na výzvu FP6-2003-SME-1, publikovanú v Úradnom vestníku zo 17. decembra 2003 (1), s uzávierkou 21. októbra 2004, sa pravidlá predkladania návrhov na nepriame akcie RTD upravujú nasledovne:

Navrhovatelia, ktorí z technických dôvodov nemôžu použiť elektronický systém predkladania návrhov (EPSS), môžu požiadať Európsku komisiu najneskôr do 5. októbra 2004 o právo predložiť svoj návrh v papierovej forme v súlade s paragrafom 6 výzvy. Žiadosti tejto povahy majú byť adresované na:

----

(1)Ú. v. EÚ C 307, 17.12.2003, s. 15.

----
Regulatory Evaluation 

DocketNo. FAA- Zolc;-rqq ( 20i 1 ~ ;J,~ -z::;-1 -r\0 

Directorate Identifier: -AD 

f(nJ/1 make changes to the m/ues in the table he/ow. you 1//Usf ensur<? the totals update occordingly. (l 

riley do not, dick (or Tah) into and then owo[The changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) 

Do (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection 2.0 $0 (H, 437 ~ ~ h,! ( I 

t) 1ill \l i'l 

I IH; II l(l 

Ill t ~ ' ' \ 1 \H 

I ' ( ~ II [ i' 

' I ( " " t'lf' 

(•·' 11 I I 

I I (' 

' '· , 1 .;r " : l ( < l 

,I '- 11 •.Ill ' (.l iH ~ 

l '· \1 l ;) d() 

(· II \. \' II 

l il\0 ' \., q (ttl ' (1 ,,,l 

lli I •, f.) II() ' I I (!() 

,, (I " ., 1: {;., 

•I ' lj lj !l \)0 

'! ·, (l H! '· I if) 

. ·' ' 'l{i!l ' ' \ l ~ i ) 

'l IJ Otl . f~ ~.~o 

l lo ' t; ~~~ t '• t} !.if; 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $74,290 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Replacement .. - \ t, ;(' 

c A.·J AtriA ' <. i tilt 

' I I (J\l ' ,) (I. I 

" r 1.\ r, ' f: 'if 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain any thing in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a " significant regulatory action" ? ~ 

YES* D NO k8J 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

YES* D NO k8J 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. , 

YES D NO k8J 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ·. 

YES* D NO k8J 

*Explanation:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 18-50939

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Salvador Chavez, Jr., also known as Salvador Chavez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:18-CR-132-1

Before Jones, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Salvador Chavez, Jr., has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Chavez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 5, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-50939 Document: 00515694857 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2021
No. 18-50939

2

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 18-50939 Document: 00515694857 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2021
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James A. Wylie, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Diomed Holdings,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: November 13, 2006                 /s/ JAMES A. WYLIE, JR.
                                        ----------------------------------------
§ 4233.15 Nature and operation of successor plan. ( a ) *Nature of plan.* The plan created by the partition order is a successor plan to which section 4022A applies, and an insolvent plan under section 4245 of ERISA.
( b ) *Treatment of plan.* The successor plan will be treated as a terminated multiemployer plan to which section 4041A(d) of ERISA applies because there are no contributing employers with an obligation to contribute within the meaning of section 4212 of ERISA as of the effective date of the partition. The treatment of the successor plan as a terminated plan under this paragraph will not be taken into account for purposes of determining the withdrawal liability of contributing employers to the original plan under sections 4201 and 4233(d)(3) of ERISA.
( c ) *Administration of plan.* The plan sponsor of the original plan and the administrator of such plan will be the plan sponsor and the administrator, respectively, of the successor plan. PBGC will retain the right to remove and replace the plan sponsor of the successor plan pursuant to section 4042(b)(2) of ERISA.
(75 South. 635)

#### GRAHAM v. STATE.

(6 Div. 306.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 8, 1917.)

Criminal Law <&wkey;1090(14) — Appeal — Bill of Exceptions — Affirmative Charge.

Bill of exceptions is necessary for review of refusal to defendant of the "general affirmative charge.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2818, 3204.]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; H. P. Heflin, Judge.

Frank Graham was Convicted, and appeals.

Affirmed.

W. D. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of eight years. The record in this case contains no bill of exceptions. No *88question was raised relative to the sufficiency ’of the indictment, and no exception was reserved to any portion of the oral charge of the court. The only refused charge was the general affirmative charge in favor of the defendant, and this charge cannot be reviewed in the absence of a bill of exceptions. Cobb v. State, 115 Ala. 18, 22 South. 506; Frazier v. State, 71 South. 981.1

We have carefully examined, the record, and find it free from error, and the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

 Reported In full in the Southern Reporter; reported as a memorandum decision without opinion in 14 Ala. App. 665.
IA 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 35 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 21, 2008 

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

To amend Public Law 108–331 to provide for the construction and related activities in support of the Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System 

(VERITAS) project in Arizona. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LOCATION OF VERITAS PROJECT. 

4 Public Law 108–331 (118 Stat. 1281) is amended— 

5 (1) in the long title, by striking ‘‘on Kitt Peak 

6 near Tucson, Arizona’’ and inserting ‘‘in Arizona’’; 

7 and 

8 (2) in section 1, by striking ‘‘on Kitt Peak near 

9 Tucson, Arizona’’ and inserting ‘‘at the Fred LawVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:17 Jul 22, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ35.RFH SJ35

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

SJ 35 RFH 

1 rence Whipple Observatory Base Camp on Mount Hop2 kins, Arizona, or other similar location’’. 

Passed the Senate July 17, 2008. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### § 4206.9 Amount of credit in plans using alternative allocation methods.

A plan that has adopted an alternative method of allocating unfunded vested benefits pursuant to section 4211(c)(5) of ERISA and part 4211 of this chapter shall adopt, by plan amendment, a method of calculating the credit provided by § 4206.3 that is consistent with the rules in §§ 4206.4 through 4206.8 for plans using the statutory allocation method most similar to the plan's alternative allocation method.
EXHIBIT 10.10




To:  Mark Scott





From:  Ron Erickson





Date:  May 5, 2010





Visualant Term Sheet





Position:  Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer





Term:  Two years





Cash compensation:  $2,000 per month until cash is available at which time cash compensation shall be increased to $8,000 per month.





Bonus cash compensation shall be at the discretion of the senior executive and the board of directors.





Benefits:  Post funding at discretion of recipient and equivalent to other employees in the company.





Stock:  1,000,000 shares of common stock to be granted upon signing, subject to board approval.





200,000 issued on signing subject to 144 only




800,000 subject to repurchase by the Company for @ $0.02 per share at my request.  The repurchase right shall terminate as to 100,000 shares at the end of every three month period of the two year term.





The stock portion of this term sheet is subject to the approval of the board of directors of Visualant.





If this proposal is acceptable to you, please sign below and I will convert this term sheet into a letter agreement and present it to the board for approval.





I look forward to a fun and rewarding experience working together.  Please let me know if you have any questions.  I want to obtain board approval of our agreement this week.





Accepted the 5th day of May, 2010.





/s/ Mark Scott


Mark Scott
(75 South. 1004)

#### BROWN v. NORTHERN ALABAMA RY. CO.

(6 Div. 257.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 1917.)

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Walker County; T. L. Sowell. Judge.

Bankhead & Bankhead, of Jasper, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
§ 505.2 Definitions. ( a ) The term *Act* means the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, 79 Stat 848, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 951 *et seq.*
( b ) The term *Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor.
( c ) The term *Administrator* means the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, or authorized representative, to whom is assigned the performance of functions of the Secretary pertaining to wages under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended.
( d ) The term *Assistant Secretary* means the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, or authorized representative, to whom is assigned the performance of functions of the Secretary pertaining to safety and health under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended.
( e ) *Professional* in the phrase *professional performer and related or supporting professional personnel* shall include all those who work for compensation on a project or production which is assisted by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the Humanities regardless of whether paid out of grant funds. It shall not include those whose status is *amateur* because their engagement for performance or supporting work contemplates no compensation. Compensation does not include reimbursement of expenses (*i.e.*, meals, costumes, make-up etc.). The words *related or supporting . . . personnel* in the same phrase shall include all those whose work is related to the particular project or production such as musicians, stage hands, scenery designers, technicians, electricians and moving picture machine operators, as distinguished from those who operate a place for receiving an audience without reference to the particular project or production being exhibited, such as ushers, janitors, and those who sell and collect tickets. The phrase does not include laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on construction projects, whose compensation is regulated under section 5(j) and section 7(j) of the Act. The phrase *professional performers and related or supporting professional personnel* shall not include persons employed as regular faculty or staff of an educational institution primarily performing duties commonly associated with the teaching profession. It shall include persons employed by educational institutions primarily to engage in activities customarily performed by performing artists or by those who assist in the presentation of performances assisted by grants from the National Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the Humanities.
[48 FR 36741, Aug. 12, 1983, as amended at 82 FR 2227, Jan. 9, 2017]
#### § 548.1 Scope and effect of regulations.

The regulations for computing overtime pay under sections 7(g)(1) and 7(g)(2) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (“the Act” or “FLSA”), for employees paid on the basis of a piece rate, or at a variety of hourly rates or piece rates, or a combination thereof, are set forth in §§ 778.415 through 778.421. Payment of overtime compensation in accordance with other subsections of section 7 of the Act is explained in part 778 of this title (Interpretive Bulletin on Overtime Compensation).

[20 FR 5679, Aug. 6, 1955, as amended at 84 FR 68769, Dec. 16, 2019]
PROMISSORY NOTE



$5,199.40                                                          May 28, 1998


        The undersigned, Navis Technologies, LTD ("Payor"), promises to pay to
John R. Varsames ("Payee") or order the principal sum of five thousand one
hundred and ninety-nine and 40/100 DOLLARS ($5,199.40) 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:       4/9/99
     ----------------------

Signature:    /S/
          -----------------
(78 South. 167)

#### BENJAMIN v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY.

(3 Div. 284.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 5, 1918.)

Municipal Corporations <&wkey;639(2) — Police ■Regulations — Policies — Sufficiency of Complaint.

A complaint by a city, charging that defendant within the limits and police jurisdiction of such city had in his possession more than one quart of whisky in receptacles of the capacity of less than a quart, in violation of a specified section of the prohibition law of the city, was defective, in that it failed to make averments of its authoritative ordination as a rule of conduct in the municipality.

Appeal from Circuit # Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Arthur Benjamin was convicted of violating a municipal ordinance, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Brassell & Brassell, of Montgomery, for appellant. Warren E. Andrews, of Montgomery, for appellee.

BRICKEN, J.

This prosecution originated in the recorder’s court of Montgomery. On appeal to the circuit court, the defendant was tried upon the following complaint:

> “The city of Montgomery complains that Arthur Benjamin, on or about the 26th day of December, . 1916, within the limits of said city, county ánd state, and within the police jurisdiction of the city of Montgomery, did possess or have in his possession more than one quart of whisky in bottles or receptacles of the capacity of less than a quart, in violation of section 23 of the prohibition law of the city of Montgomery.”

Under the authority of Rosenberg v. City of Selma, 168 Ala. 195, 52 South. 742, we must hold that the complaint filed in the circuit court is defective, in that it fails to make averments of its authoritative ordination as a rule of conduct in the municipality, as pointed out by the first ground of demurrer. The complaint having omitted the necessary averment of its authorized ordination by the municipality, the demurrer thereto should have been sustained. And for the error in overruling the demurrer, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.