alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006212EN.01003601.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/36

---

Action brought on 11 July 2006 — Portuguese Republic v Commission

(Case T-183/06)

(2006/C 212/64)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: L.Fernandes, Agent, C.Botelho Moniz, advogado, and E.Maia Cadete, advogado)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of 28 April 2006 of the Commission of the European Communities entitled ‘Commission Decision 28/IV/2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)’ in so far as it applies in the case of Portugal a financial correction of 100 % in the flax sector, amounting to EUR 3 135 348,71; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of 28 April 2006 of the Commission of the European Communities entitled ‘Commission Decision 28/IV/2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)’ in so far as it applies in the case of Portugal a financial correction of 100 % in the flax sector, amounting to EUR 3 135 348,71;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject-matter of the action is the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 28 April 2006 entitled ‘Commission Decision 28/IV/2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)’ in so far as it applies in the case of Portugal a financial correction of 100 % in the flax sector, amounting to EUR 3 135 348,71, in the context of the scheme introduced by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 of 28 April 1989 laying down detailed rules concerning the aid for fibre flax and hemp (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ L 121, 29.4.1989, p.4

1

---
### The logic of geological maps, with reference to their interpretation and use for engineering purposes

By: David J. Varnes

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp837

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (4025 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 2**                            (5323 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 3**                            (4972 pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Joseph R. Orzech *v.*Thomas J. Wynne, Jr.

*Waldemar J. Each,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Albert G. Murphy,*for the appellee (defendant).

Argued May 7

decided May 7, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion for judgment by default in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is denied.
#### § 275.1 Purpose and scope.

The purpose of this part is to outline methods available to tribes for utilizing the services of Bureau employees. These regulations are not intended to prevent an Indian tribe or tribal organization from staffing their programs by other methods they feel appropriate. However, when an Indian tribe or tribal organization decides to provide Bureau employees certain Federal benefits, Civil Service Commission regulations must be adhered to.
WF(1)

ORISPL: N/ABoiler ID: Unit 2Plant: SJGSUtility: N/A

The following combinations of control technologies may be used on wall fired boilers.

Click on the button to the right of a particular combination to see detailed results.

Primary Control 

Technology

Cost 

Effectiveness

Secondary Control 

Technology

Cost 

Effectiveness

Total Cost 

Effectiveness

New Em

Ra

LNB $556 none - $556 LNB with Overfire Air $638 none - $638 Gas Reburn $1,375 none - $1,375 SCR (70-80%) $1,884 none - $1,884 LNB $556 Gas Reburn $2,059 $1,226 LNB with Overfire Air $638 Gas Reburn $2,689 $1,267 LNB $556 SCR (70%) $3,756 $2,162 LNB with Overfire Air $638 SCR (70%) $6,142 $2,327 Gas Reburn $1,375 SCR (70%) $4,711 $2,709 LNB $556 SNCR (40%) $2,598 $1,466 LNB with Overfire Air $638 SNCR (40%) $3,393 $1,483 Gas Reburn $1,375 SNCR (40%) $2,892 $1,944 Click on the buttons below to see the cost effectiveness of each combination as a function of capacity factoror uncontrolled NOx rate.

Page 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7190

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TYREE TEKO SMITH,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(2:06-cr-01206-DCN-1; 2:11-cv-70043-DCN)

Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyree Teko Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyree Teko Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Smith 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
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                        BINDVIEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
      STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 QUARTER                       SIX MONTHS
                                                                             ENDED JUNE 30,                  ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                                        ---------------------------     -------------------------
                                                                          1999             1998           1999           1998
                                                                        ---------        ----------     ---------      ----------
<S>                                                                     <C>              <C>            <C>            <C>
Net income (loss)                                                       $   1,925        $    (542)     $     361      $  (1,212)
                                                                        =========        ==========     =========      ==========

Shares used in basis calculation
        Total basic shares                                                 22,691            8,949         22,101          8,891

Additional shares for diluted computation:
  Effect of stock options                                                   2,314            2,726          2,592          2,039
  Effect of warrants                                                           16              526             11            525
  Effect of convertible preferred stock and debentures                         --            6,544             --          6,544
  Exclusion of share equivalents that are anti-dilutive because
               a loss was incurred                                             --           (9,796)            --         (9,108)
                                                                        ---------        ----------     ---------      ----------

        Total diluted shares                                               25,021            8,949         24,704          8,891
                                                                        =========        =========      =========      =========
Earnings (loss) per common share
  Basic                                                                 $    0.08        $   (0.06)     $    0.02      $   (0.14)
  Diluted                                                               $    0.08        $   (0.06)     $    0.01      $   (0.14)
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001062195
<NAME> 24/7 MEDIA, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      38,913,006
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               63,588,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (4,441,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           109,216,000
<PP&E>                                      48,751,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,924,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             993,294,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       77,771,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       350,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 887,787,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               993,293,000
<SALES>                                     98,418,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            98,418,000
<CGS>                                       72,844,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               95,422,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (733,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (46,012,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (46,012,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (46,012,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.75)


</TABLE>
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

77-147 

May 24, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4062(e). Liability of Employer in Single Employer Plans. Closing of Facility Affecting More Than 20% of Plan

Participants

4063 Liability of Substantial Employer for Withdrawal

4064 Liability of Employers in Multiple Employer & M ultiemployer Plans

4065 Annual Report 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your request that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") rule on the application

of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act") to a sale of assets by * * * to * * * 

The facts presented by you are as follows. * * * maintained the * * * Pension Plan For Salaried Employees (the

"Plan"). The Plan is subject to Title IV of the Act. An actuarial report issued with respect to the Plan indicates that as

of * * * Plan assets were sufficient to provide all benefits guaranteed under Title IV of the Act. * * * proposes to

purchase substantially all of * * * assets. In addition, pursuant to Article 12 and Schedule 12.1(1) of the purchase

agreement dated * * *, as of the closing date of the sale * * * will be substituted as the employer for * * * under the terms

of the Plan. * * * will also agree to assume and pay all liabilities and obligations of * * * existing [*2] under the Plan

in respect of periods after the closing date. The closing date of the sale was scheduled for * * *. After the sale * * *

expects to continue * * * operations and to employ at least 80% of * * * former employees. 

The issues presented are whether § 4062(e) of the Act applies to the proposed transaction, thus subjecting * * * to

potential employer liability under § § 4063, 4064 and 4065 of the Act, and whether * * * will be liable to the PBGC

pursuant to § 4062(a) of the Act if the Plan subsequently is terminated. 

 We have determined that § 4062(e) of the Act does not apply to the proposed sale, and * * * will therefore not be

treated as a substantial employer subjec t to liability under § § 4063, 4064 or 4065 of the Act. Further, if as of the

closing date of the sale, the Plan had sufficient assets to provide all benefits guaranteed under Title IV of the Act, the

PBGC would not impose liability under § 4062(a) of the Act against * * * if the plan subsequently terminates with

insufficient assets to pay guaranteed benefits. The information submitted by you, however, does not indicate whether

as of the closing date of the sale the Plan had sufficient assets to provide [*3] guarnateed benefits. We are therefore

unable to state whether the PBGC would impose liability against * * *, in the event of the Plan's subsequent termination

with insufficient assets. 

I hope this is of assistance. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report
on Form 10-K/Amendment No.3  for the year ended January 31, 2014 of Gawk, Inc. (“the Company”), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his respective knowledge:



|1. | The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: March 19, 2015 | /s/ Scott Kettle                                             
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                     | Scott Kettle                                                 
|                     | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, andChief Financial Officer
|                     | (Principal Executive Officer)
### [§2331. Renumbered §4507]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2331 was renumbered section 2350 of this title.
| (logo) NTS NATIONAL

TAX SEARCH, LLC | 130 S. Jefferson, Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60661

312-233-6440 |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OFCOMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’SREGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year ending December31, 2016, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for **WellsFargo Bank** (the “Servicer”).

 

National Tax Search, LLC(“NTS”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31,2016 and for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the“Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the“CFR”). NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS bythe Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Onlyservicing criteria 1122 (d) (l)(ii), 1122 (d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the“Applicable Servicing Criteria”) are applicable to the activitiesNTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS hasdetermined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) ofthe SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs withrespect to the transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered bythis report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer usingNTS’s TaxQ system (the “Platform Transactions”).

 

NTS, as a vendor, has assessedits compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Periodand has concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects, with theApplicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2016 and for the ReportingPeriod with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

 

Plante& Moran, PLLC, anindependent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation reporton the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as ofDecember 31, 2016 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

 

National Tax Search, LLC, asVendor to Servicer

 

 

/s/ Lori D. Eshoo

Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO 

January 23, 2017
#### Birdie S. Sternberger v. Louis Sternberger.

Motion granted. Settle order on notice.
#### Thomas HARRISON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF COLLEGE PARK et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 78-2144.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 30, 1979.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 30, 1979.

Claudia Tesoro, Myron Kramer, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.

Nancy Merrill Hunt, College Park, Ga., Virginia A. Bonner, Decatur, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge, and CAMPBELL *, District Judge.

*

 District Judge of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

We affirm on the basis of the District Court’s opinion, 445 F.Supp. 356, holding that Thomas Harrison did not, under Georgia law, have a property interest in his continued employment with the City of College Park Housing Authority. *See Bishop v. Wood,*1976, 426 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 48 L.Ed.2d 684.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.3

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Link Plus Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Patricia E. Jones, Secretary/Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer), certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
         material aspects, the financial condition and result of operations on
         the Company.



/s/ PATRICIA E. JONES
-----------------------------------------
Patricia E. Jones, Secretary/Treasurer
### SUBCHAPTER X—POWERS AND DUTIES OF MEMBER BANKS
Exhibit 35.5



LOGO

3217 S. Decker Lake Drive | Salt Lake City, Utah | 84119



|Agreement: | See Schedule of Agreements
|---------- | --------------------------



|Dated: | See Attached Schedule
|------ | ---------------------

ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

In
accordance with the applicable section in each of the Pooling and Servicing Agreements specified:



| | i. | a review of the activities of the Servicer during the year ended December 31, 2016 and of performance under this Agreement has been made under such officers supervision; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ii. | to the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled in all material respects all of its obligations and no default has occurred under this Agreement throughout such year.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                
|--------------------------------
|February 22, 2017               
|                                
|/s/ Timothy J. OBrien          
|Timothy J. OBrien              
|Chief Executive Officer         
|Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.



---

Schedule of Agreements





Assignment, Assumption and Recognition Agreement for the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-1, among Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation (the
Assignor), Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. (the Depositor), Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., (the Servicer), DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (the Servicing Rights Purchaser) and U.S. Bank National
Association, as trustee, servicing under the Flow Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights Sale and Servicing Agreement Among Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer, DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., as Servicing Rights Purchaser, and Redwood Residential
Acquisition Corporation, as Owner, 1/27/2012
#### § 309.22 What are examples of painting and other fine art forms that are Indian products?

Painting and other fine art forms made by an Indian including but, not limited to, works on canvas, photography, sand painting, mural, computer generated art, graphic art, video art work, printmaking, drawing, bronze casting, glasswork, and art forms to be developed in the future, are Indian products.

[68 FR 35170, June 12, 2003]