alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006281EN.01002801.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/28

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2006 — Sinaga v Commission

(Joined Cases T-217/99, T-321/00 and T-222/01) (1)

1

(Sugar - Poseima Programme - Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 - Sugar forecast supply balance for the Azores - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Definition of traditional shipment to the rest of the Community - Statement of reasons - Compliance with essential procedural requirements)

(2006/C 281/45)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Sociedade de Indústrias Agrícolas Açoreanas (Sinaga) SA (Ponta Delgada, Portugal) (represented by: M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: in Case T-217/99, initially A. Alves Vieira and P. Oliver, then G. Berscheid, Agents, assisted by F. Costa Leite, lawyer, and in Cases T-221/01 and T-321/00, initially A. Alves Vieira and G. Berscheid, and then by G. Berscheid, assisted initially by N. Castro Marques, lawyer, and then F. Costa Leite, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment, firstly, of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1434/1999 of 30 June 1999 establishing the sugar forecast supply balance for the 1999/2000 marketing year for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations (EEC) No 1600/92 and (EEC) No 1601/92 (OJ 1999 L 166, p. 58); secondly, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1481/2000 of 6 July 2000 establishing the sugar forecast supply balance for 2000/01 for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations No 1600/92 and No 1601/92 (OJ 2000 L 167, p. 6) and also of the annex thereto and, thirdly, of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1281/2001 of 28 June 2001 establishing the forecast supply balance for sugar for the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands provided for in Council Regulations No 1600/92 and No 1601/92 for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2001 (OJ 2001 L 176, p. 12) inasmuch as they set the quantities of sugar considered necessary for supplying the Azores

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 333, 20.11.1999.

1

---
Exhibit 35.3



|         |  |  |  |               
|-------- |  |  |  | --------------
|LOGO     |  |  |  |               
|MORTGAGE |  |  |  | 1 Mortgage Way
|         |  |  |  | Mt. Laurel, NJ

FORM 1123 CERTIFICATION

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

We, Gregory
Bronczyk and William Becker, the undersigned, authorized officers of PHH Mortgage Corporation (the Servicer), do certify the following for the calendar year ended December 31, 2018:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the servicing agreement[s] listed below hereto
(the Agreement(s)) has been made under such officers supervision.

2. To the best of such officers knowledge, based on
such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period.



|                                              |  |                     
|--------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|Certified by: PHH Mortgage Corporation       
|                                              | 
|By:                                           |  | /s/ Gregory Bronczyk
|                                             
|Name: Gregory Bronczyk                       
|                                             
|Title: Vice President and Assistant Secretary
|                                             
|Date: February 28, 2019                      
|                                              | 
|By:                                           |  | /s/ William Becker  
|                                             
|Name: William Becker                         
|                                             
|Title: Vice President, Default Servicing     
|                                             
|Date: February 28, 2019                      



---

SCHEDULE 1

[List of applicable contracts]

Citibank As Securities Administrator



|                    |  |              |  |                         
|------------------- |  | ------------ |  | ------------------------
|PHH Investor Number |  | PHH Category |  | Deal Name/Agreement Name
|                    |  |             
|S24                 |  | All          |  | SEMT 2012-3             
|                    |  |             
|S40                 |  | All          |  | SEMT 2012-4             
|                    |  |             
|S42                 |  | All          |  | SEMT 2012-5             
|                    |  |             
|S47                 |  | All          |  | SEMT 2012-6             
|                    |  |             
|S52                 |  | All          |  | SEMT 2013-1             
|                    |  |             
|S54                 |  | All          |  | SEMT 2013-2             
|                    |  |             
|S67                 |  | All          |  | SEMT 2013-7             
|                    |  |             
|R87                 |  | All          |  | SEMT 2012-1             
|                    |  |             
|R97                 |  | All          |  | SEMT 2012-2
### §9066. Regular Air Force: composition

(a) The Regular Air Force is the component of the Air Force that consists of persons whose continuous service on active duty in both peace and war is contemplated by law, and of retired members of the Regular Air Force.

(b) The Regular Air Force includes—

(1) the officers and enlisted members of the Regular Air Force;

(2) the professors, registrar, and cadets at the United States Air Force Academy; and

(3) the retired officers and enlisted members of the Regular Air Force.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 496, §8075; Pub. L. 85–600, §1(13), Aug. 6, 1958, 72 Stat. 523; renumbered §9075, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §806(c), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1833; renumbered §9066, Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title IX, §952(b)(1), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1561.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8075(a)8075(b) | 10:1832(a).10:1832 (less (a)). | Sept. 19, 1951, ch. 407, §302, 65 Stat. 329; Apr. 1, 1954, ch. 127, §7, 68 Stat. 48. |

8075(b)

10:1832 (less (a)).

In subsection (b), the words "holding appointments or enlisted in the Regular Air Force as now or hereafter provided by law", "and such other persons as are now or may hereafter be specified by law", and "commissioned * * * warrant officers" are omitted as surplusage, since the revised section lists all persons in the Regular Air Force. 10:1832(b) (last sentence) is omitted as executed.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2019—Pub. L. 116–92 renumbered section 9075 of this title as this section.

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 8075 of this title as section 9075 of this title.

1958—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 85–600 included the registrar of the Air Force Academy.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
§ 39.500 What emergency and contingency funds are available? The Secretary: ( a ) Must reserve 1 percent of funds from the allotment formula to meet emergencies and unforeseen contingencies affecting educational programs;
( b ) Can carry over to the next fiscal year a maximum of 1 percent the current year funds; and
( c ) May distribute all funds in excess of 1 percent equally to all schools or distribute excess as a part of ISEP.
#### § 243.13 Who may appeal an action under this part?

Any interested party adversely affected by a decision under this part has the right of appeal as provided in 25 CFR part 2 and 43 CFR part 4, subpart D.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6851

MARTY TARRELL GASTON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. ( 3:22

- cv - 00015

- MR )

Submitted : December 20, 2022 Decided: December 27, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Marty Tarrell Gaston , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6851 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Marty Tarrell Gaston se eks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate bo th that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gaston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate ly presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6851 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
# C_2006190EN.01001801.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/18

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2006 — Pérez-Díaz v Commission

(Case T-156/03) (1)

1

(Officials - Annulment of the refusal to enter a candidate on the reserve list of temporary staff - Candidate's submission to a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment annulling the refusal - Second refusal of entry - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2006/C 190/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Orlando Pérez-Diaz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

First, an action for annulment of the refusal by the committee responsible for selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 to enter the applicant's name on the reserve list of temporary staff following a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2002 in Case T-102/01 Pérez-Díaz v Commission (ECR-SC I-A-165 and II-871), and, second, a claim for compensation for the damage supposedly caused by the unlawfulness of that refusal.

Pérez-Díaz

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the selection committee, contained in the letter of 21 January 2003 notified to the applicant, not to enter his name on the reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/01/1999; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the selection committee, contained in the letter of 21 January 2003 notified to the applicant, not to enter his name on the reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/01/1999;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 19.7.2003.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as chief executive officer of Iron Age Corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify that to the undersigneds knowledge:

|   |  |                                                                                                                                                             
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1) |  | the Companys 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
|  
|2) |  | the information contained in the Companys 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/William J. Mills                                             
|                                                                
|William J. Mills
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director

Dated: June 11, 2002
#### § 115.701 What types of accounts are maintained for Indian trust funds?

Indian trust funds are deposited in tribal accounts, Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts, and special deposit accounts. The illustration below provides information on each of these trust accounts.

[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/ER22JA01.172/ER22JA01.172_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/ER22JA01.172/ER22JA01.172_original_size.png)

[[66 FR 7094](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/66-FR-7094), Jan. 22, 2001, as amended at [66 FR 8768](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/66-FR-8768), Feb. 2, 2001]
# C_2006261EN.01000802.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche Post AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third Party: MDG Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH

(Case C-291/06)

(2006/C 261/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant:

Third party: MDG Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH

Third party:

Question referred

Is Article 47(2), in conjunction with Article 95 EC, the fifth indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in the version amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 (1), to be interpreted as meaning that, where a universal service provider applies special tariffs for business customers who give postal items to the sorting office pre-sorted for the postal network, that universal service provider is obliged to apply those special tariffs also to undertakings which collect postal items from the sender and give them pre-sorted for the postal network at the same access point and on the same terms and conditions as business customers, without the universal service provider being permitted to refuse to do so, having regard to its obligation to provide a universal service?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brian E. Schaaf, certify that:

 

1.                                    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2012-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon, as indenture trustee of the issuing entity, and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as owner trustee of the issuing entity.

 
| Dated   March 21, 2014 |   |                                               |
|-----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                               |
|                        |   |                                               |
|                        |   | /s/   Brian E. Schaaf                              |
|                        |   | Brian   E. Schaaf                                  |
|                        |   | Vice   President and Assistant Treasurer           |
|                        |   | Ford   Motor Credit Company LLC, as Servicer       |
|                        |   | (senior   officer in charge of servicing function) |

 

----
SCWC

- 15

- 0000545

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ‘ I

________________________________________________________________

ROBERT H. JOSLIN dba HAWAII PUBLIC ADJUSTERS , Petitioner /Plaintiff

- Appellee /Cross

- Appellant ,

vs.

OTA CAMP

- MAKIBAKA ASSOCIATION, INC., a Hawai ‘ i nonprofit corporation, Respondent/Defendant

- Appellant/Cross

- Appellee,
and TAIRA PROCTOR and MELINDA DOMAGSAC, Respondents/Defendants

- Appellees/Cross

- Appellees , and
ALTERRA EXCESS & SURPLUS INSURANCE COMPANY , Respond ent/ Interpleader

- Appellee/Cross

- Appellee

.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 15

- 0000545; CIVIL N O. 14

- 1

- 2086

- 10 (KKS) )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Plaintiff

- Appellee/Cross

- Appellant Robert

H. Joslin dba Hawaii Public Adjusters’ application for writ of

certiorari filed on June 1 9 , 2019, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Hon olulu, Hawai ‘ i, July 26 , 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000545 26-JUL-2019 02:47 PM
# ME Plans Paying Premiums_020124
# C_2006224EN.01000102.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/1

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Roche Nederland BV, Roche Diagnostic Systems Inc., Roche NV, Hoffman-La Roche AG, Produits Roch SA, Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Hoffman-La Roche Wien GmbH, Roche AB v Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg

(Case C-539/03) (1)

1

(Brussels Convention - Article 6(1) - More than one defendant - Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where one of the defendants is domiciled - Action for infringement of a European patent - Defendants established in different Contracting States - Patent infringements committed in a number of Contracting States)

(2006/C 224/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Roche Nederland BV, Roche Diagnostic Systems Inc., Roche NV, Hoffman-La Roche AG, Produits Roche SA, Roche Products Ltd, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Hoffmann-La Roche Wien GmbH, Roche AB

Applicants:

Defendants: Frederick Primus, Milton Goldenberg

Defendants:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of the Brussels Convention — More than one defendant — Actions for infringement of a European patent brought against companies established in various European States — Jurisdiction of the Courts of the principal place of business of one of the companies.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended most recently by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in European patent infringement proceedings involving a number of companies established in various Contracting States in respect of acts committed in one or more of those States even where those companies, which belong to the same group, may have acted in an identical or similar manner in accordance with a common policy elaborated by one of them.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.

1

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Guidance Document Database 
-  Dispute Resolution 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Dispute Resolution

                  -  Opinion Letter 82-27
Addresses whether immediate payment of the outstanding amount of an employer's withdrawal liability can be required if any installment is not paid during the withdrawal liability dispute resolution process and before the arbitrator's final decision. PBGC adopted a rule addressing the issue. (See 29 CFR part 4219, Subpt C.) 
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 82-32
Addresses the procedure to follow when parties to a dispute over withdrawal liability do not agree on the selection of an arbitrator.  PBGC adopted a rule addressing the issue. (See 29 CFR § 4221.4.)  
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 82-39 
Addresses the determination of withdrawal liability and the procedure to dispute withdrawal liability.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 83-04
Validity of demand for withdrawal liability is subject to arbitration. 
-               document