alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4281.47 Application for financial assistance. ( a ) *General.* 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. The application must be filed within the time specified under paragraph (b) of this section and must contain the information under paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *When, how, and where to apply* — ( 1 ) *Initial application.* Except as provided in the next sentence, a plan sponsor must apply for financial assistance no later than 90 days before the first day of the month for which the plan sponsor has determined the resource benefit level will be below the level of guaranteed benefits. If a plan sponsor cannot practicably apply for financial assistance by the date in the preceding sentence, the application must be made as soon as practicable after the plan sponsor has made the determination in the preceding sentence.
( 2 ) *Recurring application.* A plan sponsor must apply for financial assistance as soon as practicable after the plan sponsor determines that the plan will be unable to pay guaranteed benefits when due for a month.
( 3 ) *How and where to apply.* Application to PBGC for financial assistance must be made in accordance with the rules in subpart A of part 4000 of this chapter. See § 4000.4 of this chapter for information on where to apply.
( c ) *Contents of application* — ( 1 ) *Initial application.* A plan sponsor applying for financial assistance because the plan's resource benefit level is below the level of guaranteed benefits must file an application that includes the information specified in the instructions for an application for initial financial assistance on PBGC's website (*www.pbgc.gov*).
( 2 ) *Recurring application.* A plan sponsor applying for financial assistance because the plan is unable to pay guaranteed benefits for any month must file an application that includes the information specified in the instructions for an application for recurring financial assistance on PBGC's website (*www.pbgc.gov*).
( 3 ) *Additional information.* PBGC may request any additional information that it needs to calculate or verify the amount of financial assistance necessary as part of the conditions of granting financial assistance pursuant to section 4261 of ERISA.
[61 FR 34118, July 1, 1996, as amended at 84 FR 18727, May 2, 2019]
§ 778.113 Salaried employees—general. ( a ) *Weekly salary.* If the employee is employed solely on a weekly salary basis, the regular hourly rate of pay, on which time and a half must be paid, is computed by dividing the salary by the number of hours which the salary is intended to compensate. If an employee is hired at a salary of $350 and if it is understood that this salary is compensation for a regular workweek of 35 hours, the employee's regular rate of pay is $350 divided by 35 hours, or $10 an hour, and when the employee works overtime the employee is entitled to receive $10 for each of the first 40 hours and $15 (one and one-half times $10) for each hour thereafter. If an employee is hired at a salary of $375 for a 40-hour week the regular rate is $9.38 an hour.
( b ) *Salary for periods other than workweek.* Where the salary covers a period longer than a workweek, such as a month, it must be reduced to its workweek equivalent. A monthly salary is subject to translation to its equivalent weekly wage by multiplying by 12 (the number of months) and dividing by 52 (the number of weeks). A semimonthly salary is translated into its equivalent weekly wage by multiplying by 24 and dividing by 52. Once the weekly wage is arrived at, the regular hourly rate of pay will be calculated as indicated above. The regular rate of an employee who is paid a regular monthly salary of $1,560, or a regular semimonthly salary of $780 for 40 hours a week, is thus found to be $9 per hour. Under regulations of the Administrator, pursuant to the authority given to him in section 7(g)(3) of the Act, the parties may provide that the regular rates shall be determined by dividing the monthly salary by the number of working days in the month and then by the number of hours of the normal or regular workday. Of course, the resultant rate in such a case must not be less than the statutory minimum wage.
[46 FR 7310, Jan. 23, 1981, as amended at 76 FR 18857, Apr. 5, 2011]
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

     I, Charles S. Conoley, certify that: 

l.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Horizon Bancorporation, 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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a'14 and 15d'14) 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)	[Reserved.]

	c)	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

	d)	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 quarterly 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 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 controls over financial reporting.

Date: August 15, 2005.

/S/ Charles S. Conoley
#### § 779.23 Establishment.

As used in the Act, the term *establishment,* which is not specially defined therein, refers to a “distinct physical place of business” rather than to “an entire business or enterprise” which may include several separate places of business. This is consistent with the meaning of the term as it is normally used in business and in government, is judicially settled, and has been recognized in the Congress in the course of enactment of amendatory legislation (*Phillips* v. *Walling,* 324 U.S. 490; *Mitchell* v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 352 U.S. 1027; 95 Cong. Rec. 12505, 12579, 14877; H. Rept. No. 1453, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., p. 25). As appears more fully elsewhere in this part, this is the meaning of the term as used in sections 3(r), 3(s), 6(d), 7(i), 13(a), 13(b), and 14 of the Act.
Exhibit 15.1



|MOEN AND COMPANY                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS                                  
|Member:                                                
|Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants            
|Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia 
|Institute of Management Accountants (USA) (From 1965)  
|                                                       
|Registered with:                                       
|Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (USA) (PCAOB)
|Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB)            
|Canada  - British Columbia Public Practice Licence     



Awareness Letter on Unaudited Interim Financial Information

We are independent accountants and we hereby acknowledge awareness of the use in the Form 10QSB of Maverick Minerals Corporation of our report dated August 4, 2005 that applies to the unaudited interim financial statement as of June 30, 2005 and for the three month and six month periods ended June 30, 2005.

Yours very truly,

MOEN AND COMPANY,Chartered Accountants

/s/ Moen and Company"
("Signed")

Vancouver, B.C. Canada
August 8, 2005









---
#### § 794.115 “Independently owned.”

Ownership of the enterprise may be vested in an individual petroleum jobber, or a partnership, or a corporation, so long as such ownership is not shared by a major oil company, or other producer, refiner, distributor or supplier of petroleum products, so as to affect the independent ownership of the enterprise. As noted in § 794.114, an enterprise will not be considered independently owned where it does not own its own office, bulk storage, and delivery facilities. The enterprise may also not be considered “independently owned” where it does not own its stock-in-trade. (See *Wirtz* v. *Lunsford,* 404 F.2d 693 (C.A. 6).) It is recognized that, in the ordinary course of business dealings, an independently owned enterprise may purchase its goods on credit and this, of course, will not affect its characterization as being “independently owned” within the meaning of the exemption. However, there may well be a question as to whether the enterprise is “independently owned” where the enterprise receives its petroleum products on consignment and the supplier lays claim to the ownership of the account receivable. Of possible relevance also is the intent evident in the statutory language to provide exemption only for an enterprise which can meet the specified tests which depend on “the sales of such enterprise.” The determination in such cases, as in other cases involving questions of independent ownership, will necessarily depend on all the facts.
§ 553.12 Exclusion for employees of legislative branches. ( a ) Section 3(e)(2)(C) of the Act provides an exclusion from the definition of the term “employee” for individuals who are not subject to the civil service laws of their employing agencies and are employed by legislative branches or bodies of States, their political subdivisions or interstate governmental agencies.
( b ) Employees of State or local legislative libraries do not come within this statutory exclusion. Also, employees of school boards, other than elected officials and their appointees (as discussed in § 553.11), do not come within this exclusion.
§ 103.400 General. ( a ) The Area Maritime Security (AMS) Committee will ensure that a risk based AMS Assessment, is completed and meets the requirements specified in § 103.310 of this part and § 101.510 of this subchapter, incorporating the elements specified in § 103.405 of this part.
( b ) AMS Assessments can be completed by the COTP, the AMS Committee, a Coast Guard Port Security Assessment team, or by another third party approved by the AMS Committee.
( c ) Upon completion of each AMS Assessment, a written report, which is designated sensitive security information, must be prepared consisting of: ( 1 ) A summary of how the AMS Assessment was conducted;
( 2 ) A description of each vulnerability and consequences found during the AMS Assessment; and
( 3 ) A description of risk reduction strategies that could be used to ensure continued operation at an acceptable risk level.
#### HART v CONGER HELPER REALTY CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10203.

Decided December 23, 1929

Mr.- H. E. Kohen, Esq., Cleveland, for Hart.

Messrs. Thompson, Hiñe & Flory, Cleveland, for Realty Co.

LEMERT, P. J. & SHERICK, J. (5th Dist) sitting.

*77SHERICK, J.

Two questions are, therefore, before this court for consideration, the first of which is as follows:

May a defendant assert the statute of frauds as a bar . to an action under an answer in the form of a general denial?

We believe that this question has been fully answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Birchell vs. Neaster, 36 OS. 331 and that this question is no longer an open one in Ohio, and that the statute of frauds may be proven under a general denial.

The second question is: Can one recover commissions for the sale of real estate made in the year 1924 pursuant to a parol contract made in the same year, the action not having been commenced therefor until the year' 1927? ~

It is well settled in this State that there is no vested right to a remedy, and the legislature may, at any time, amend or repeal any such remedial statute, provided that such amendment shall not affect a pending action, unless specifically provided for in the amending section. This is forbidden by 36 GC.

This question has likewise been before the courts of this State, and it has been decided that the statute of frauds is remedial in its nature and lays down a rule of evidence. Rules of evidence are applicable to the remedy only and a statute which modifies a remedy is not in conflict with the constitutional guaranty against the enactment of retroactive laws.

The amendment to the statute of frauds became operative on July 9th, 1925. and the cause of action herein sued upon was not commenced until the year 1927. It, therefore, follows, that the rule annnouneed, precludes the plaintiff in error from any recovery upon the. oral contract plead in this instance, and we believe that the case of Elder vs. Shoffstal, 90 OS. 265; 107 NE 539 is direct authority for the rule announced herein.

The case of State ex rel Campbell vs. Ballard, 8 OA. 44; Schoenl vs. Warner White Co., 2 Ohio Bar 59; Ward vs. Schwartz, 25 OA. 175, and the recent case of Cliff vs. Seligman, decided by Judge West in the Federal District Court of the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, on January 15th, 1929, are also in point.

It, therefore, follows, that the judgment of the trial court will be and the same is hereby affirmed with exceptions.

Lemert, PJ., concurs. Houck, J., not participating.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13593]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00-1053; MM Docket No. 99-270; RM-9703]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Taos, NM

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Darren Cordova, allots 
Channel 240A to Taos, NM, as the community's third local FM service. 
See 64 FR 47484, August 31, 1999. Channel 240A can be allotted to Taos 
in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation 
requirements with a site restriction of 9.7 kilometers (6.0 miles) 
southeast, at coordinates 36-21-48 NL; 105-28-51 WL, to avoid a short-
spacing to the proposed allotment of Channel 240A at Chama, NM. See, MM 
Docket 99-116, 64 FR 23036, April 29, 1999. A filing window for Channel 
240A at Taos will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue of 
opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed by the 
Commission in a subsequent order.

DATES: Effective June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-270, adopted May 3, 2000, and 
released May 12, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 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.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334. 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under New Mexico, 
is amended by adding Channel 240A at Taos.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-13593 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROSA MARIA HANASH,

 Appellant,

v.

WALTER ANTIQUES, INC. AND 

NANCY WALTER, INDIVIDUALLY,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-16-00054-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 6 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2012-DCV05940) 

J U D G M E N T

The judgment of the Court issued on March 9, 2018 is withdrawn, and the following is the 

judgment of the Court.

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellees 

recover from Appellant all costs, both in this Court and the court below. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### § 785.11 General.

Work not requested but suffered or permitted is work time. For example, an employee may voluntarily continue to work at the end of the shift. He may be a pieceworker, he may desire to finish an assigned task or he may wish to correct errors, paste work tickets, prepare time reports or other records. The reason is immaterial. The employer knows or has reason to believe that he is continuing to work and the time is working time. (*Handler* v. *Thrasher,* 191, F. 2d 120 (C.A. 10, 1951); *Republican Publishing Co.* v. *American Newspaper Guild,* 172 F. 2d 943 (C.A. 1, 1949; *Kappler* v. *Republic Pictures Corp.,* 59 F. Supp. 112 (S.D. Iowa 1945), aff'd 151 F. 2d 543 (C.A. 8, 1945); 327 U.S. 757 (1946); *Hogue* v. *National Automotive Parts Ass'n.* 87 F. Supp. 816 (E.D. Mich. 1949); *Barker* v. *Georgia Power & Light Co.,* 2 W.H. Cases 486; 5 CCH Labor Cases, para. 61,095 (M.D. Ga. 1942); *Steger* v. *Beard & Stone Electric Co., Inc.,* 1 W.H. Cases 593; 4 Labor Cases 60,643 (N.D. Texas, 1941))
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-3820 Directorate ID: 2014-SW-024-AD

Helicopter Model: Various Restricted Category Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 607 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: These actions are intended to detect a crack in the M/R blade, and prevent failure of the 

M/R blade and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

Costs:

 Cleaning and performing all inspections of a set of M/R blades (2 per

helicopter) requires a total of 1⁄2 work-hour. No parts are needed. At an estimated 24 

inspections a year, the cost is estimated at $1,032 per helicopter and $626,424 for the 

U.S. fleet. 

 Replacing an M/R blade requires 12 work hours, and parts cost $90,656, for a 

total cost of $91,676 per blade. 

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Charles Harrison
#### § 784.11 “Establishment.”

As used in the Act, the term “establishment”, which is not specially defined therein, refers to a “distinct physical place of business” rather than to “an entire business or enterprise” which may include several separate places of business. This is consistent with the meaning of the term as it is normally used in business and in government, is judicially settled, and has been recognized in the Congress in the course of enactment of amendatory legislation (*Phillips* v. *Walling,* 324 U.S. 490; *Mitchell* v. *Bekins Van & Storage Co.,* 352 U.S. 1027; 95 Cong. Rec. 12505, 12579, 14877; H. Rept. No. 1453, 81st Cong., first session, p. 25). This is the meaning of the term as used in sections 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 58 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2007 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Welcoming First Minister Dr. Ian Paisley and Deputy First 

Minister Martin McGuinness of Northern Ireland to the 

United States. 

Whereas on May 8, 2007, power was restored to the Assembly of Northern Ireland, opening a new chapter in the 

history of Northern Ireland; 

Whereas Dr. Ian Paisley became First Minister and Martin 

McGuinness became Deputy First Minister of Northern 

Ireland; 

Whereas Dr. Paisley and Mr. McGuinness have been working 

to solidify the peace agreement and to govern Northern 

Ireland effectively; and 

Whereas Dr. Paisley and Mr. McGuinness are making their 

first trip together to the United States: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS_CN
2 

SCON 58 RFH 

1 (1) welcomes First Minister Dr. Ian Paisley 

2 and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness of 

3 Northern Ireland to the United States; 

4 (2) commends Dr. Paisley and Mr. McGuinness 

5 for showing the world that it is possible to rise above 

6 decades of bitter sectarian violence to achieve peace; 

7 and 

8 (3) expresses hope that Northern Ireland will 

9 continue to be peaceful and stable in the future. 

Passed the Senate December 4, 2007. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS_CN