alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4010.2 Definitions. The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: benefit liabilities, Code, contributing sponsor, controlled group, earliest retirement age at valuation date, ERISA, expected retirement age (XRA), fair market value, IRS, PBGC, person, plan, plan year, unreduced retirement age (URA), ultimate parent, and U.S. entity. In addition, for purposes of this part: *At-risk status* means, with respect to a plan for a plan year, at-risk status as defined in ERISA section 303(i)(4) and Code section 430(i)(4).
*Exempt entity* means a person that does not have to file information and about which information does not have to be filed, as described in § 4010.4(c).
*Exempt plan* means a plan about which actuarial information does not have to be filed, as described in § 4010.8(c).
*Fair market value of the plan's assets* means the fair market value of the plan's assets at the end of the plan year ending within the filer's information year (determined without regard to any contributions receivable).
*Filer* means a person who is required to file reports, as described in § 4010.4.
*Fiscal year* means, with respect to a person, the person's annual accounting period or, if the person has not adopted a closing date, the calendar year.
*Foreign entity* means a member of a controlled group that — ( 1 ) Is not a contributing sponsor of a plan;
( 2 ) Is not organized under the laws of (or, if an individual, is not a domiciliary of) any state (as defined in section 3(10) of ERISA); and
( 3 ) For the fiscal year that includes the information year, meets one of the following tests— ( i ) Is not required to file any United States Federal income tax form;
( ii ) Has no income reportable on any United States Federal income tax form other than passive income not exceeding $1,000; or
( iii ) Does not own substantial assets in the United States (disregarding stock of a member of the plan's controlled group) and is not required to file any quarterly United States income tax returns for employee withholding.
*4010 funding target attainment percentage* means, with respect to a plan for a plan year, the percentage as determined under § 4010.4(b) for the plan year.
*Funding target* means, with respect to a plan for a plan year, the funding target as provided under ERISA section 303(d)(1) and Code section 430(d)(1) determined as of the valuation date for the plan year.
*Information year* means the information year determined under § 4010.5.
*Valuation date* means, with respect to a plan for a plan year, the valuation date as determined under ERISA section 303(g)(2) and Code section 430(g)(2).
[61 FR 34022, July 1, 1996, as amended at 74 FR 11029, Mar. 16, 2009; 81 FR 15439, Mar. 23, 2016; 85 FR 6059, Feb. 4, 2020]
Applicability of Tax: General sales & use tax- Applies to all goods and services taxable under state law. 

Administrative Costs: 3% of gross collections withheld by the state for administration of the tax. 

Credits or Exemptions: Tax subject to same credits & exemptions available under state sales & use tax law 

Subsequent Amendments and Amendment Purpose: 

1. Date: ----- --- --- Amending Ordinance No. - ------ --- -

Purpose of Amendment: 

2. Date: - --- --- --- Amending Ordinance No. - ----------

Purpose of Amendment: 

3. Date: --------- - Amending Ordinance No.---- - --- ---

Purpose of Amendment: 

4. Date: --------- - Amending Ordinance No. - --- --- --- -

Purpose of Amendment: 

Is the tax on aviation fuel distributed for airport related purposes: Yes or~ v If No, state reason for belief that the tax is grandfathered. 

The state of Arkansas administers local taxes for all cities and counties in this state and commits that the 

Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration w ill notify the FAA of any subsequent amendments 

to this tax that could affect grandfathered status. 

n H. Theis, Assistant Revenue Commissioner 
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

NOW, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 

BENTONVILLl:, ARKANSAS: 

Sectiqn.J.: LEVY OF SALES AND USE TAX: As authorized by Act 25 of 

1981, First Extraordinary Session, of the Acts of Arkansas, there is hereby levied a sales and use tax at the rate of one percent (1%) on the receipts fron the sale at retail within the City of Bentonville, Arkansas, 

or. all such items which are subject to taxation under the Arkansas Gross 

Re-ceipts Tax Act, Act 386 of 1941 of the Acts of Arkansas, as amended. 

SINGLE TRANSACTION REBATE: Taxes in excess of $25.00 

paid to the City on a single transaction shall be rebated to the purcl:.aser of i;he item subject to taxation under Section 1 hereof. The City 

Clerk of the City of Bentonville, Arkansas, may promulgate reasonable 

n:.les and J:egulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Ordimonee to iiaplement the rebate procedure of taxes paid in excess of $25.00 

per single transaction. 

Section 3: SPECIAL ELECTION: Said question of the levy of a sales 

ar:d use ta:c as provided in Section 1 hereof shall be submitted to a vote 

oi the of Bentonville, Arkansas, by special election to be held 

or._ January 25, 1983. 

SectiqD._i: EMERGENCY CLAUSE: That the City COuncil for the City of 

Bentonville, Arkansas, has determined that there is a great need to establish a stable source of revenue to finance vital municipal services, and 

tbis Ordimmce being necessary for the preservation of the health, safety 

and welfare of the Citizens of Bentonville, an emergency is declared to exist 

and this Ot"d.inance shall become law il'mlediately upon ite>yiSSageras·:requi_redby law-, 

PASSEl) and APPROVED this £_5 day of , 1982. 

APPROVED: 

A'ITEST: 

Cit:y Clerk
§ 519.9 Reconsideration and review. ( a ) Within 15 days after being informed of a denial of an application for a full-time student certificate or within 45 days after Federal Register publication of a statement of the terms of the certificate granted (subsequent to April 30, 1976, within 60 days after a certificate is granted), any person aggrieved by the action of an authorized officer in denying or granting a certificate may: ( 1 ) File a written request for reconsideration thereof by the authorized officer who made the decision in the first instance, or
( 2 ) File with the Administrator a written request for review.
( b ) A request for reconsideration shall be accompanied by a statement of the additional evidence which the applicant believes may materially affect the decision and a showing that there were reasonable grounds for failure to present such evidence in the original proceedings.
( c ) Any person aggrieved by the reconsideration determination of an authorized officer may, within 15 days after such determination, file with the Administrator a written request for review.
( d ) A request for review shall be granted where reasonable grounds for the review are set forth in the request.
( e ) If a request for reconsideration or review is granted, the authorized officer or the Administrator may, to the extent he/she deems it appropriate, afford other interested persons an opportunity to present data, views, or argument.
[40 FR 6329, Feb. 11, 1975; 40 FR 22546, May 23, 1975]
§ 4208.10 Method of filing; method and date of issuance. ( a ) *Method of filing.* The PBGC applies the rules in subpart A of part 4000 of this chapter to determine permissible methods of filing with the PBGC under this part.
( b ) *Method of issuance.* The PBGC applies the rules in subpart B of part 4000 of this chapter to determine permissible methods of issuance under this part.
( c ) *Date of issuance.* The PBGC applies the rules in subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter to determine the date that an issuance under this part was provided.
[68 FR 61355, Oct. 28, 2003]
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.801 Caissons. ( a ) Wherever, in caisson work in which compressed air is used, and the working chamber is less than 11 feet in length, and when such caissons are at any time suspended or hung while work is in progress so that the bottom of the excavation is more than 9 feet below the deck of the working chamber, a shield shall be erected therein for the protection of the employees.
( b ) Shafts shall be subjected to a hydrostatic or air-pressure test, at which pressure they shall be tight. The shaft shall be stamped on the outside shell about 12 inches from each flange to show the pressure to which they have been subjected.
( c ) Whenever a shaft is used, it shall be provided, where space permits, with a safe, proper, and suitable staircase for its entire length, including landing platforms, not more than 20 feet apart. Where this is impracticable, suitable ladders shall be installed with landing platforms located about 20 feet apart to break the climb.
( d ) All caissons having a diameter or side greater than 10 feet shall be provided with a man lock and shaft for the exclusive use of employees.
( e ) In addition to the gauge in the locks, an accurate gauge shall be maintained on the outer and inner side of each bulkhead. These gauges shall be accessible at all times and kept in accurate working order.
( f ) In caisson operations where employees are exposed to compressed air working environments, the requirements contained in § 1926.803 shall be complied with.
§ 37.91 What notice must the Director issue if he or she finds reasonable cause to believe that a violation has taken place? If the Director finds reasonable cause to believe that the respondent has violated the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA or this part, he or she must issue an Initial Determination. The Initial Determination must include: ( a ) The specific findings of the investigation;
( b ) The corrective or remedial action that the Department proposes to the respondent, under § 37.94;
( c ) The time by which the respondent must complete the corrective or remedial action;
( d ) Whether it will be necessary for the respondent to enter into a written agreement under § 37.95 and 37.96; and
( e ) The opportunity to engage in voluntary compliance negotiations.
§ 4281.42 Retroactive payments. ( a ) *Erroneous resource benefit level.* If, by the end of a year in which benefits were suspended under § 4281.41, the plan sponsor determines in writing that the plan's available resources in that year could have supported benefit payments above the resource benefit level determined for that year, the plan sponsor may distribute the excess resources to each affected participant and beneficiary who received benefit payments that year on a pro rata basis. The amount distributed to each participant under this paragraph may not exceed the amount that, when added to benefit payments already made, brings the total benefit for the plan year up to the total benefit provided under the plan.
( b ) *Benefits paid below resource benefit level.* If, by the end of a plan year in which benefits were suspended under § 4281.41, any benefit has not been paid at the resource benefit level, amounts up to the resource benefit level that were unpaid shall be distributed to each affected participant and beneficiary on a pro rata basis to the extent possible, taking into account the plan's total available resources in that year.
§ 4002.10 Authority and amendments. ( a ) Section 4002 of ERISA and the bylaws establish the authority and responsibilities of the Board, the Board Representatives, and the Director.
( b ) These bylaws may be amended or new bylaws adopted by unanimous vote of the Board.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13138]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00-866; MM Docket No. 90-466; RM-7327, RM-7987, RM-7988, RM-8705].


Radio Broadcasting Services; Pleasanton, Bandera, Hondo, 
Hollywood Park, and Dilley, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission dismisses as moot the Application for Review 
filed by Reding Broadcasting Company, requesting reconsideration of a 
dismissal of its proposal to substitute Channel 252A for Channel 253C2 
at Pleasanton, TX, substitute Channel 253A for Channel 290A at Hondo, 
TX and Channel 252A for Channel 276A at Bandera, TX. Petitioner 
received requested relief in MM Docket No. 98-55.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media 
Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Order, MM Docket No. 90-466 adopted April 12, 2000, and released April 
14, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. 
The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
 Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-13138 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
From: rekoot@gmail.com <rekoot@gmail.com> on behalf of John Tooker <tooker@psu.edu>

Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 11:27 PM

To: Martinez, Jeannette

Subject: Re: CRW SAP docket for submitting comments

Hi Jeannette. I hope you are doing well. I was unable to meet the deadline for posting 

comment to the open docket on the corn rootworm issue, so I thought I would weigh in on one 

of the charge questions. You are welcome to share my comments with the panel as you see fit. 

Question 1A: The panel is asked to comment on sampling approaches for conducting annual 

CRW resistance monitoring that support early resistance detection. Please discuss the strengths 

and limitations of BPPD’s proposal for a focused (risk based) sampling approach for the Corn 

Belt, supplemented with samples from lower risk “fringe” areas for comparison.

Tooker's comment: Given lower regional populations of CRW and corn, it is evident that 

evolution of resistance to Bt by CRW is less likely in the "fringe" areas. Nevertheless, based on 

evidence from Michigan (Dr. Chris Difonzo, 2012, 2013) and NY (Elson Shields, 2013), it is clear 

that evolution of resistance is possible and even likely in areas with continuous corn and high 

rates of Bt adoption, even if these areas are smaller than similar areas in the midwest. In much 

of the Mid-Atlantic and New England states, these fringe areas of continuous corn tend to be 

dominated by dairies that need corn (grain or silage) for their animals. By talking to 

agronomists and other experienced agricultural professionals (university based and otherwise), 

it can be estimated which parts of states have high concentrations of continuous corn and high 

rates of Bt adoption. Given the availability of purchase information from companies that can 

further confirm or better delineate these areas, I would argue that it makes strong sense to use 

targeted sampling to find suspicious fields in fringe areas, rather than random sampling. 

Colleagues at Michigan State and Cornell more or less predicted where resistance would first 

arrive in their states. In Pennsylvania, I could highlight certain areas that are more likely to 

evolve resistance. Combining my best guess with a similar estimate by local agronomists and 

seed purchase data could even better refine locations to sample. This directed, risk-based 

sampling approach would remove randomness from the model, which is good because large 

portions of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast rotate their crops regularly and would not be 

expected to be profitable sites. Direct efforts looking for resistance in the most likely places 

seems like a more proactive approach that could detect shifts in susceptibility not easily noted 

by random sampling.

My two cents,

John Tooker

John

--
John F. Tooker

Assistant Professor

Extension Specialist

Department of Entomology

Penn State Extension

Penn State University

501 ASI Building

University Park, PA 16802

814-865-7082

Research: http://ento.psu.edu/research/labs/john-tooker

Extension: http://ento.psu.edu/extension/field-crops-new
* 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 December 9, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60578 Conference Calendar

BRIAN A. YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHELIA JENKINS, Homicide Detective, in her individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:03-CV-22-GR

-------------------- Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Brian Young, Mississippi prisoner No. L0787, moves this court to appoint appellate counsel. The motion is denied. Young has appealed the dismissal of his in forma pauperis (IFP) civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The district court held that Young’s complaint failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted because his claims areNo. 03-60578 -2-

** 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). barred by the doctrine of by Heck v. Humphrey
. ** Young has failed to show that the district court erred in determining that a judgment in Young’s favor would necessarily implicate the validity of his conviction and sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint. The district court’s dismissal of the complaint and this court’s affirmance of the dismissal count as one strike against Young for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Young is warned that, should he accumulate three strikes, he will be barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Joseph E. Macharsky, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof The Boyds Collection, Ltd.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

b)            Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation, and

 

c)             Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

1

----

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)             All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)            Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| /s/ Joseph E. Macharsky |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Joseph E. Macharsky     |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| Date: May 14, 2004      |

 

2

----
#### § 548.501 Overtime hours based on nonstatutory standards.

Many employees are paid daily overtime pay or Saturday overtime pay or overtime pay on a basis other than the statutory standard of overtime pay required by section 7(a) of the Act. In these cases, the number of hours for which an employee is paid at least one and one-half times an established basic rate must equal or exceed the number of hours worked in excess of the applicable number of hours established in section 7(a) of the Act in the workweek. However, only overtime hours under the employment agreement which also qualify as overtime hours under section 7(e) (5), (6), or (7) of the Act[25] may be offset against the hours of work in excess of the applicable number of hours established in section 7(a) of the Act.

[26 FR 7732, Aug. 18, 1961]

###### Footnotes -
  548.501

[25] See §§ 778.201 through 778.207 of this chapter.