The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XIV
TAXATION AND FINANCE

Chapter 202
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES TAX SIMPLIFICATION LAW

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 202.17

202.17 Registration.—

(1) Each person seeking to engage in business as a dealer of communications services must file with the department an application for a certificate of registration. Registration under this section does not constitute registration with a municipality or county for the purpose of placing and maintaining communications facilities in municipal or county rights-of-way, as described in s. 337.401.

(2) A person may not engage in the business of providing communications services without first obtaining a certificate of registration. The failure or refusal to submit an application by any person required to register, as required by this section, is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Any person who fails or refuses to register shall pay an initial registration fee of $100. However, this fee may be waived by the department if the failure is due to reasonable cause.

(3)(a) An application for a certificate of registration must be completed by the dealer of communications services before engaging in business. The application for a certificate of registration must contain the information required by rule of the department.

(b) The department, upon receipt of a completed application, shall grant to the applicant a certificate of registration.

(4) Each application required by paragraph (3)(a) must set forth:

(a) The name under which the person will transact business within this state.

(b) The street address of his or her principal office or place of business within this state and of the location where records are available for inspection.

(c) The name and complete residence address of the owner or the names and residence addresses of the partners, if the applicant is a partnership, or of the principal officers, if the applicant is a corporation or association. If the applicant is a corporation organized under the laws of another state, territory, or country, he or she must also file with the application a certified copy of the certificate or license issued by the Department of State showing that the corporation is authorized to transact business in this state.

(d) Any other data required by the department.

(5) Certificates of registration issued by the department are not assignable.

(6) In addition to the certificate of registration, the department shall provide to each newly registered dealer an initial resale certificate that is valid for the remainder of the period of issuance. The department shall provide to each active dealer an annual resale certificate. As used in this section, the term “active dealer” means a person who is registered with the department and who is required to file a return at least once during each applicable reporting period.

(7) A certificate of registration issued by the department may be revoked by the department or its designated agent when a dealer fails to comply with this chapter or chapter 203. Before revoking a dealer’s certificate of registration, the department must schedule an informal conference at which the dealer may present evidence regarding the department’s intended revocation or enter into a compliance agreement with the department. The department must notify the dealer of its intended action and of the time, place, and date of the scheduled informal conference by written notification sent by United States mail to the dealer’s last known address of record furnished by the dealer on a form prescribed by the department. The dealer must attend the informal conference and present evidence refuting the department’s intended revocation or enter into a compliance agreement with the department which resolves the dealer’s failure to comply with this chapter or chapter 203. The department shall issue an administrative complaint under s. 120.60 if the dealer fails to attend the department’s informal conference, fails to enter into a compliance agreement with the department resolving the dealer’s noncompliance with this chapter, or fails to comply with the executed compliance agreement.

(8) It is the intent of the Legislature to subject to the provisions of this chapter all sellers of communications services that have established a sufficient connection with this state to permit the state constitutionally to require compliance with this chapter. Activities of a seller of communications services that may subject such a seller to the provisions of this chapter include, but are not limited to:

(a) Maintaining an office or other place of business within this state.

(b) Solicitation of business from one or more Florida locations through employees, agents, independent contractors, or other representatives of such seller.

History.—ss. 9, 58, ch. 2000-260; ss. 7, 38, ch. 2001-140; ss. 4, 19, ch. 2005-187.

F.S. 202.17 on Google Scholar

F.S. 202.17 on Casetext

Amendments to 202.17

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 202.17

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S202.17 2 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - PROVIDE COMMUNICATION SERVICES WO CERTIFICATE - M: F

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

P. LEE, v. W. COLVIN,, 631 F. App'x 538 (10th Cir. 2015)

. . . P, App. 2, rule 202.17 (the grids) as a framework, the ALJ concluded that Mr. . . . Lee had the RFC to perform the full range of light work, Rule 202.17 would direct a finding of “not disabled . . .

SCHULTS, v. W. COLVIN,, 1 F. Supp. 3d 712 (E.D. Ky. 2014)

. . . The ALJ pointed out that Medical Vocational Rule 202.17 would require a finding of “not disabled” if . . .

GONZALES, v. J. ASTRUE,, 960 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (N.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . The ALJ found under Medical-Vocational Rule 202.17 that Gonzales’s “moderate restriction of his ability . . . Medical-Vocational Rule 202.17 directs a finding of "not disabled” where a claimant has the residual . . .

EVANS, v. W. COLVIN,, 514 F. App'x 753 (10th Cir. 2013)

. . . P, App. 2, rule 202.17 (the grids) as a framework, the ALJ concluded that Ms. . . .

L. HART, v. J. ASTRUE,, 32 F. Supp. 3d 227 (N.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . Specifically, the ALJ concluded that a finding of “not disabled” was directed by Medical-Vocational Rules 202.17 . . .

C. ARMIJO, v. J. ASTRUE,, 385 F. App'x 789 (10th Cir. 2010)

. . . unskilled light work, the ALJ determined that a finding of “not disabled” was appropriate under Rule 202.17 . . .

A. McDONAUGH, v. J. ASTRUE,, 672 F. Supp. 2d 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

. . . Ford had stated that Plaintiff had a functional capacity for light work pursuant to Vocational Rule 202.17 . . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 202.17).) The ALJ also found Dr. . . .

HOBBS, v. ASTRUE,, 627 F. Supp. 2d 719 (W.D. La. 2009)

. . . residual functional capacity to perform the full range of light work and is not disabled, under Section 202.17 . . . Part 404, Sub-part P, Appendix 2, Section 202.17. . . . The ALJ found that Section 202.17 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines directed a finding of “not disabled . . .

S. NICHOLSON, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,, 600 F. Supp. 2d 740 (N.D.W. Va. 2009)

. . . ability to perform the full range of even light exertional work and, pursuant to Medical-Vocational Rule 202.17 . . .

TIMMONS, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 546 F. Supp. 2d 778 (E.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . has the ability to perform light work with a nonexertional mental impairment related limitation, rule 202.17 . . .

A. RAMIREZ, v. J. ASTRUE,, 255 F. App'x 327 (10th Cir. 2007)

. . . work experience, a finding of “not disabled” is supported by application of Medical-Vocational Rule 202.17 . . . capacity for light work, and the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, Medical-Vocational Rule 202.17 . . .

E. WILLIAMS, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. s Co., 504 F. Supp. 2d 176 (S.D. Tex. 2007)

. . . . § 202.17(b). Williams’s ECOA claim is barred by the statute of limitations. . . . . § 202.17(b)(2). . . .

SEABOLT, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 481 F. Supp. 2d 538 (D.S.C. 2007)

. . . limitations do not allow him to perform the full range of light work, using Medical-Vocational Rules 202.17 . . .

BOGARD, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 159 F. App'x 737 (8th Cir. 2005)

. . . P, App. 2, Table 2, Rule 202.17. Accordingly, we affirm. . The Honorable Henry L. . . .

DAVIS, v. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., 406 F. Supp. 2d 698 (N.D. Miss. 2005)

. . . the ECOA must be brought within two years after the date of the occurrence of the violation. 12 CFR § 202.17 . . .

SANTIAGO v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 367 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Pa. 2005)

. . . . § 416.969 and the framework of Rule 202.17, Table 2, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4, plaintiff . . .

In M. NEMES, P. v. M., 323 B.R. 316 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . .; seven checks in the amount of $202.17 and one check in the amount of $202.46 payable to the Debtor . . .

ELBERT, v. Jo BARNHART,, 335 F. Supp. 2d 892 (E.D. Wis. 2004)

. . . Finally, at step five, relying on the testimony of the VE and using Grid Rule 202.17 as a framework, . . .

K. HICKS, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,, 105 F. App'x 757 (6th Cir. 2004)

. . . straightforward application of these findings dictated the ALJ’s finding that Hicks is not disabled under Rule 202.17 . . .

LANCLOS, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 317 F. Supp. 2d 408 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . P, App. 2 § 202.17. . . .

DELGADO, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 305 F. Supp. 2d 704 (S.D. Tex. 2004)

. . . Specifically referencing Rules 202.10-12 and 202.17-19, and relying on the testimony of a vocational . . . A finding of ‘not disabled’ is therefore reached within the framework of Medical-Vocational Rule[s] 202.17 . . . P, App. 2, §§ 202.10-12, 202.17-19. . . . Nonetheless, as previously noted, the ALJ relied on Rules 202.10-12 and 202.17-19 in reaching his decision . . . P, App. 2, §§ 202.10-11, 202.17-18. . . .

NEVAREZ, v. O CONNOR CHEVROLET, INC., 303 F. Supp. 2d 927 (N.D. Ill. 2004)

. . . . §§ 202.1-202.17 (2003). . . .

ADKINS, Jr. v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 80 F. App'x 44 (10th Cir. 2003)

. . . functional capacity (RFC) to perform the full range of light work and was therefore not disabled under Rule 202.17 . . .

LOPEZ, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 78 F. App'x 675 (10th Cir. 2003)

. . . Although the ALJ questioned a vocational expert (VE), he used Rule 202.17 from the Medical Vocational . . . Rule 202.17 directs a conclusion of not disabled where a claimant’s relevant medical and vocational characteristics . . .

E. WRIGHT, v. G. MASSANARI,, 321 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 404.1569 (Rules 202.10 and 202.17 pertain to Wright’s exertional capacity and her age, education, . . .

ROBINSON, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 248 F. Supp. 2d 607 (S.D. Tex. 2003)

. . . On the basis of the record, the undersigned finds that medical-vocational rule 202.17 directs a conclusion . . . On the basis of the record, the undersigned finds that medical-vocational rule 202.17 directs a conclusion . . .

VIGO RAMOS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 241 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D.P.R. 2003)

. . . for light [work], and the claimant’s age, education and work experience, Section 404.1569 and Rule 202.17 . . .

L. HARRIS, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 219 F. Supp. 2d 966 (E.D. Wis. 2002)

. . . In making the final determination, the ALJ stated that Rules 202.17 and 202.20 of the Medical-Vocational . . .

J. PETERSON, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 215 F. Supp. 2d 439 (D. Del. 2002)

. . . considering her age, education and work experience, section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16 and Rule 202.17 . . .

ISHMAEL, v. Jo B. BARNHART,, 212 F. Supp. 2d 865 (N.D. Ill. 2002)

. . . After the burden shifted to the Commissioner at step five, the ALJ looked to Medical-Vocational Rules 202.17 . . .

A. GORECKI, v. G. MASSANARI,, 197 F. Supp. 2d 154 (M.D. Pa. 2001)

. . . evaluating the claimant under the framework of the Vocational Regulations and Section 416.969 and Rule 202.17 . . .

EDLUND, v. G. MASSANARI,, 253 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . rejection of Kim Lay's testimony, her conclusory Step 3 equivalence finding, her application of Rule 202.17 . . .

A. HOWARD, v. MASSANARI,, 255 F.3d 577 (8th Cir. 2001)

. . . P, App. 2, specifically Rules 202.10 and 202.17, provide a framework for a finding of not disabled.” . . .

AGUIRRE, v. MASSANARI,, 13 F. App'x 509 (9th Cir. 2001)

. . . P, App. 2, Table 2, Rule 202.17. . . .

FARGNOLI, v. G. MASSANARI,, 247 F.3d 34 (3d Cir. 2001)

. . . P, App. 2, § 202.17. . . .

HATCHER, v. S. APFEL,, 167 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Kan. 2001)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, §§ 201.18 & 202.17. . . .

ASSAVEDO, v. S. APFEL,, 115 F. Supp. 2d 704 (E.D. La. 2000)

. . . . § 404, Subpt.P., App. 2, Table 2, Rules 202.16, 202.17 (an individual of plaintiffs age who is limited . . .

MARTONE, v. S. APFEL,, 70 F. Supp. 2d 145 (N.D.N.Y. 1999)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 202.17-202.19. . . .

D. BRADY v. S. APFEL,, 41 F. Supp. 2d 659 (E.D. Tex. 1999)

. . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, § 202.17. . . .

R. FEILD, v. S. APFEL,, 34 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (W.D. Tenn. 1998)

. . . she relied on Rule 202.20, which is for an applicant with a high school education, instead of Rule 202.17 . . .

GUYTON, No. XXX- XX- XXXX v. S. APFEL,, 20 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D. Mass. 1998)

. . . with his age, education, and lack of work experience, 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 202.17 . . .

G. BROWN, v. S. APFEL,, 996 F. Supp. 922 (W.D. Mo. 1998)

. . . The ALJ relied on Section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16 and Rules 202.17 and 202.118, Table No. 2, Appendix . . .

GRAHAM, v. APFEL,, 129 F.3d 1420 (11th Cir. 1997)

. . . and work experience, Graham was not disabled, as defined by § 416.969 of Regulations No. 16 and Rule 202.17 . . .

W. BURNETT, v. E. SHALALA,, 883 F. Supp. 565 (D. Kan. 1995)

. . . work, and claimant’s age, education and work experience, Section 404.1569 and the framework of Rules 202.17 . . .

L. GLASS, v. SHALALA,, 43 F.3d 1392 (10th Cir. 1994)

. . . P, App. 2, and §§ 201.18, 202.17. . . .

P. KELLY, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 871 F. Supp. 586 (W.D.N.Y. 1994)

. . . . § 404.1569 and Rules 202.17-202.22, Table No. 2, Appendix 2 to Subpart P (Medical-Vocational Guidelines . . .

FAFORD, v. SHALALA,, 856 F. Supp. 13 (D. Mass. 1994)

. . . the vocational expert and the above conclusions, the ALJ properly applied Faford’s profile to Rule 202.17 . . .

HADDON, v. SHALALA,, 818 F. Supp. 1139 (N.D. Ill. 1993)

. . . years of formal education and past relevant unskilled work required a conclusion pursuant to Grid Rule 202.17 . . .

M. LEGGITT, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 812 F. Supp. 1109 (D. Colo. 1992)

. . . Defendant contends that rule 202.17, for ages 18-49, is the correct rule. . . .

MARASCALCO, d b a v. FANTASY, INC. d b a, 953 F.2d 469 (9th Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 202.17(f)(iii). . . .

GONZALEZ, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 757 F. Supp. 130 (D.P.R. 1991)

. . . The ALJ used Rule 202.17, Table 2, Appendix 2, Subpt. P, 20 C.F.R. Part 404. . . . On Table 2, the light work chart, Rule 202.17 corresponds to a younger individual (18-49), limited or . . .

CARPENTIER, v. M. SULLIVAN, M. D., 755 F. Supp. 816 (C.D. Ill. 1990)

. . . The AU applied grid rules 202.17 and 202.18 in this case. . . .

HUTSELL, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 892 F.2d 747 (8th Cir. 1989)

. . . The AU then applied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the “grid”), finding that Rules 202.16 and 202.17 . . . We note that under grid Rules 202.16 and 202.17, upon which the ALJ properly relied, it was not necessary . . .

TAVOLETTI, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 732 F. Supp. 578 (W.D. Pa. 1989)

. . . proceeded to apply the grids to the plaintiff’s specific vocational profile, and concluded that Section 202.17 . . .

M. ORTIZ, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 890 F.2d 520 (1st Cir. 1989)

. . . particular rule reflecting light, unskilled work for a younger individual with limited education is Rule 202.17 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. SULLIVAN,, 717 F. Supp. 639 (N.D. Ill. 1989)

. . . The issue of transferability of work skills is immaterial as Rules 202.17 and 202.13 would direct a finding . . . Regulations No. 4 and section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16, and Rules 201.19, 201.20, 201.24 and 201.25, and 202.17 . . .

COZAD, v. W. SULLIVAN, M. D., 715 F. Supp. 237 (N.D. Ind. 1989)

. . . Therefore, Rule 202.17 of the Grid directed the conclusion that plaintiff was not disabled during that . . . Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and section 416.969 of Regulations No. 16, and Rule 202.17, Table . . .

B. ANDERSON, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 868 F.2d 921 (7th Cir. 1989)

. . . P, App. 2, Table No. 2, Rule 202.17, which mandated a finding that Anderson was not disabled in light . . . The AU then proceeded at Step 5 to apply Rule 202.17, Table No. 2, of the Secretary’s Medical-Vocational . . . Anderson urges that there is no substantial evidence to support the application of Rule 202.17 in this . . . One of the prerequisites to application of Rule 202.17 is that the claimant be able to perform the full . . . Anderson challenges application of Rule 202.17 on two other grounds, neither of which need detain us. . . .

A. HALL, v. R. BOWEN,, 857 F.2d 1210 (8th Cir. 1988)

. . . P, app. 2, table no. 2, rule 202.17. . . .

CALDARULO, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 857 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1988)

. . . In denying Caldarulo benefits, the Secretary relied on Rules 202.17 and 202.-18, which direct a finding . . .

A. SNYDER, v. R. BOWEN, M. D., 694 F. Supp. 90 (M.D. Pa. 1988)

. . . .-24; § 202.00, Table No. 2, Rule 202.17. . . .

N. RAY, v. R. BOWEN,, 843 F.2d 998 (7th Cir. 1988)

. . . Section 404.1569 of Regulations No. 4 and Rules 202.17 and 202.18, Table No. 2 of Appendix 2, Subpart . . .

NELSON, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 676 F. Supp. 44 (W.D.N.Y. 1987)

. . . . §§ 416.920(f), 416.945, 416.946, 416.967(b), and App. 2, Rule 202.17 to Subpt. P of Part 404. . . .

B. PATTERSON, v. R. BOWEN,, 799 F.2d 1455 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . P, app. 2, rule 202.01 (1986) (disabled), with id. rule 202.17 (not disabled). . . .

DARNELL DARNELL, v. R. BOWEN, 631 F. Supp. 96 (W.D. Va. 1986)

. . . the capacity to perform a restricted range of medium, light and sedentary work, using Rules 203.25, 202.17 . . .

S. WEBBER, v. SECRETARY, HEALTH HUMAN SERVICES,, 784 F.2d 293 (8th Cir. 1986)

. . . the residual functional capacity to perform at least light work, the Appeals Council applied Rules 202.17 . . .

TACKETT, v. HECKLER,, 627 F. Supp. 545 (S.D.W. Va. 1986)

. . . him from performing a significant number of jobs at the light work level, the ALJ then applied Rule 202.17 . . .

W. DAY, v. M. HECKLER,, 781 F.2d 663 (8th Cir. 1986)

. . . Applying Rule 202.17 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. . . .

TUCKER, Jr. v. HECKLER,, 776 F.2d 793 (8th Cir. 1985)

. . . The AU then applied Rule 202.17 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. . . .

MURPHY v. M. HECKLER,, 613 F. Supp. 1233 (W.D. Pa. 1985)

. . . . § 404.1598, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Table No. 2, Rule 202.17 in making this determination. . . .

LAWLER, v. M. HECKLER,, 761 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1985)

. . . claimant’s inadequate personality, she would still be found “not disabled” under the framework of Rules 202.17 . . .

E. WASHINGTON, v. M. HECKLER,, 756 F.2d 959 (3d Cir. 1985)

. . . factors of age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity are the same as those in Rule 202.17 . . .

CARRY, v. M. HECKLER,, 750 F.2d 479 (5th Cir. 1985)

. . . P, appendix 2, §§ 202.17, 202.18. . . . . P, appendix 2 §§ 202.01-202.22, the Secretary concluded that, whether § 202.17 or § 202.18 applied, the . . .

GALLANT, v. M. HECKLER,, 753 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1984)

. . . functional capacity to perform light and sedentary work and applied Medical-vocational Rule 202.19 and Rule 202.17 . . . which the AU concluded mandated a finding of “not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpart P, app. 2, §§ 202.17 . . .

BOWKER, v. M. HECKLER,, 596 F. Supp. 1416 (D. Me. 1984)

. . . Part 404, Rule 202.17, to determine that Plaintiff is not disabled. . . . Based on the claimant’s exertional limitation only, section 404.1569 and 416.969 and Rule 202.17, Table . . . of nondisability under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569, and Appendix 2, Rule 202.17 . . .

ELLIS, v. S. SCHWEICKER,, 739 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1984)

. . . See 20 C.F.R. 404, Rules 201.25, Table 1, and 202.17, Table 2 to Appendix 2 to Subpart P of the Secretary . . .

H. LOYA, v. M. HECKLER,, 707 F.2d 211 (5th Cir. 1983)

. . . Using Rule 202.17, Table 2, Appendix 2, of the Social Security Regulations, which establishes the availability . . . The ALJ determined that Loya was not disabled on the basis of Rule 202.17, Table 2, Appendix 2, which . . . Since Loya’s characteristics did coincide with or were superior to all of the factors m rule 202.17, . . .

EASLEY, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 558 F. Supp. 967 (W.D. Mo. 1983)

. . . Finding, it is considered unskilled with no transfer-rable skills), Vocational Rules 203.25 (medium) or 202.17 . . . usual work activity at a substantial gainful level or that under Vocational Rules 203.25 (medium) or 202.17 . . .

TUCKER, Jr. v. SCHWEIKER,, 689 F.2d 777 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . Applying Rule 202.17 of the Guidelines to these findings, the ALJ held that a conclusion of “not disabled . . . Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, § 202.17 (1982). . . .

McGHEE, v. R. HARRIS,, 683 F.2d 256 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . sec. 416.913) (types of evidence) (Sec. 416.926, Sec. 404.1526) (weight of evidence), or tables (Rule 202.17 . . .

L. TENNANT, v. SCHWEIKER,, 682 F.2d 707 (8th Cir. 1982)

. . . The ALJ stated that based on these findings, the medical-vocational “grid,” specifically Rule 202.17, . . .

L. TORRES, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 668 F.2d 67 (1st Cir. 1981)

. . . From this the ALJ concluded that appellant fell under the profile listed at Rule 202.17 of the “Medical-Vocational . . .

H. KIRK, C. v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 667 F.2d 524 (6th Cir. 1981)

. . . Plugging appellant’s characteristics into the grid, the ALJ utilized Rule 202.17 in determining that . . .

SALINAS, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 662 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . In the present case, the ALJ applied his findings of fact to Rule 202.17, Table 2, of Appendix 2, which . . .

R. PEREZ, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 653 F.2d 997 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . Dropping down to Rule 202.17 in Table 2, the ALJ came up with a finding that Perez was not disabled. . . . Rule 202.17, which the ALJ in this case found applicable, reads as follows: Table No. 2 — RESIDUAL FUNCTIONAL . . . OF SEVERE MEDICALLY DETERMINABLE IMPAIRMENTS) Previous Rule_Age_Education_Work Experience_Decision 202.17 . . .

ZIMIGA, v. S. SCHWEIKER,, 651 F.2d 611 (8th Cir. 1981)

. . . . § 416.910 (1980), and accordingly held that Rules 202.17 and 202.18 in Table No. 2 of Subpart I’s Appendix . . .

CANNON, v. HARRIS,, 651 F.2d 513 (7th Cir. 1981)

. . . The Appeals Council pointed out on review of the ALJ’s decision that, based on his findings, Rule 202.17 . . . Since Rule 202.17 also directed a finding of not disabled, however, the ALJ’s error was harmless. . . .

R. WARD, v. HARRIS,, 515 F. Supp. 859 (W.D. Okla. 1981)

. . . Regulation 404.1513 and Rule 202.17 Table No. 2 of Appendix, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4 direct that . . .

F. FITZSIMMONS, v. MATHEWS,, 491 F. Supp. 423 (W.D. Mo. 1980)

. . . .-18 and 202.17 which are contained in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix II, Sub-part P, Regulation No. 4, direct . . .

TOBIAS, v. JOY MUSIC, INC., 204 F. Supp. 556 (S.D. Cal. 1962)

. . . . § 24; Rules and Regulations of Copyright Office, § 202.17 (a), 37 C.F.R., 17 U.S.C.A. following section . . . application, on its behalf but in the name of the authors (See Rules and Regulations of Copyright Office, § 202.17 . . . Office an application for renewal must be made in the name of the author. 17 U.S.C. § 24;- 37 C.F.R. 202.17 . . .

ROSE, v. BOURNE, INC., 279 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1960)

. . . . § 24, and Section 202.17(a) of the Rules of the Copyright Office, 37 C.F.R., application for renewal . . .

ROSE, v. BOURNE, INC., 176 F. Supp. 605 (S.D.N.Y. 1959)

. . . Rules and Regulations Copyright Office § 202.17(a), 17 U.S.Code Appendix; Marx v. . . . renewal must be made in the name of the author or composer. 28 Op.Attys.Gen. 162; 17 U.S.Code Appendix, § 202.17 . . .