alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Report of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm

Managing Member

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC

New York, NY





We have examined management’s assertion,
included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of 2014 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC with
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”)
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation
AB as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, excluding those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A) within Exhibit B to Management’s
Report. The transactions covered by this report are only those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor
or operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the “Platform”) identified in Management’s
Report. Reference Exhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by this examination. Management is responsible
for the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s
assertion based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance
with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, including examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of a selected sample of the servicing
activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria during the specified period. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing
activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our examination was not designed to detect material
noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests, that may have affected the Company’s
servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria.



In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied
with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’s Report with respect to the
transactions identified in Exhibit A to Management’s Report as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, for the Platform,
is fairly stated in all material aspects.









Curcio, Wieseltheir & Cohen, C.P.A.’S, P.C.

New York, NY

February 20, 2015





MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OMI Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Craig H. Stevenson, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 result of operations of the Company.
|





|Date: | May 9, 2007 |  | By: | /s/Craig H. Stevenson, Jr.
|----- | ----------- |  | --- | --------------------------
|      |             |  |     | Craig H. Stevenson, Jr.   
|      |             |  |     | Chairman of the Board and 
|      |             |  |     | Chief Executive Officer   











A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OMI Corporation and will be retained by OMI Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon
request.

---
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4319]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public 
comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the 
Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, April 28, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Gilbert at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(515) 564-6638.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be held Thursday, April 28, 2011, at 2 p.m., Eastern Time via 
telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or 
submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference 
lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Susan 
Gilbert. For more information please contact Ms. Gilbert at 1-888-912-
1227 or (515) 564-6638 or write: TAP Office, 210 Walnut Street, Stop 
5115, Des Moines, IA 50309 or contact us at the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: February 18, 2011.
Shawn Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2011-4319 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

37 38 39 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/19 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Premium Filings 
-  Premium Rates 

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.

# Premium Rates

October 13, 2023

## Current and Historical Information

PBGC's Pension Insurance Data Tables contain a complete history of premium rates.

## Increases After 2019

From 2020 - 2023, all premium rates and the VRP cap were subject to indexing. Starting in 2024, the VRP rate will no longer be indexed. All other premium rates and the VRP cap will continue to be indexed after 2023.

## Termination Premiums

For certain distress or involuntary terminations, a special termination premium must be paid to PBGC for three years. For more information, see Termination Premiums.
# C_2006237EN.01002201.xml

| 30.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/22

---

Action brought on 16 August 2006 — Dethomas v Commission

(Case F-93/06)

(2006/C 237/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Dethomas (Rabat, Morocco) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2006 appointing the applicant a probationary official of the European Communities, as Head of the Commission delegation to Morocco in the Directorate-General for External Relations, in so far as it classifies him in Grade A*14, step 2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2006 appointing the applicant a probationary official of the European Communities, as Head of the Commission delegation to Morocco in the Directorate-General for External Relations, in so far as it classifies him in Grade A*14, step 2;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

While he was a member of the temporary staff in Grade A*14, step 8, the applicant applied for the post advertised in vacancy notice COM/229/04 for the recruitment of the Head of the Commission Delegation to Morocco (1). His application being successful, he was appointed a probationary official in Grade A*14, step 2.

1

In his application, the applicant claims that, since he was appointed an official in the same Grade immediately following his period of service as a member of the temporary staff, the Commission should have appointed him, under the third paragraph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, in grade A*14, step 8. By refusing him the benefit of that provision, the Commission made a manifest error of law.

---

(1)  OJ C 246 A, 5.10.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 680

Expressing the sense of the House with respect to the request of Leonard

Peltier for executive clemency.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 15, 2000

Mr. GRAHAM submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House with respect to the

request of Leonard Peltier for executive clemency.

Whereas Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agents Ron

A. Williams and Jack R. Coler were grievously wounded

and then executed at point blank range during the commission of their duties;

Whereas Leonard Peltier was convicted on one count of the

first degree murder of Agent Ron A. Williams and one

count of first degree murder of Agent Jack R. Coler;

Whereas Leonard Peltier is currently serving two consecutive

life sentences for his crimes;

Whereas the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

has recently stated that the brutal crimes committed by
2

•HRES 680 IH

Leonard Peltier are considered a complete affront to our

cherished system of Government under the rule of law;

Whereas the eighth circuit court of appeals has consistently

upheld his conviction on four separate occasions;

Whereas the Supreme Court has twice declined to review his

appeal;

Whereas the Federal Parole Board refused to recommend his

parole as recently as June 12, 2000; and

Whereas the families of the slain agents have decidedly opposed the commutation of Leonard Peltier’s sentence:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House that—

2 (1) Leonard Peltier’s petition for executive

3 clemency from consecutive life sentences for his bru4 tal crimes should be denied; and

5 (2) Leonard Peltier’s premeditated execution of

6 two young Federal Bureau of Investigation agents

7 was the most vile disrespect to all that we cherish

8 under our law and our God and for which modera9 tion can only signal disrespect.

Æ
IB

House Calendar No. 315

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 639

[Report No. 106–991]

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 2796) to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the

Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements

to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 18, 2000

Mr. GOSS, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 2796) to provide

for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army

to construct various projects for improvements to rivers

and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

3 order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2796) to provide

4 for the conservation and development of water and related
2

HRES 639 RH

1 resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to con2 struct various projects for improvements to rivers and har3 bors of the United States, and for other purposes. The

4 bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The

5 amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the

6 Congressional Record and numbered 2 pursuant to clause

7 8 of rule XVIII shall be considered as adopted. The pre8 vious question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,

9 as amended, to final passage without intervening motion

10 except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended,

11 equally divided and controlled by the chairman and rank12 ing minority member of the Committee on Transportation

13 and Infrastructure; and (2) one motion to recommit with

14 or without instructions.

15 SEC. 2. If the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then

16 it shall be in order to move that the House insist on its

17 amendment to S. 2796 and request a conference with the

18 Senate thereon.

House Calendar No. 315

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 639

[Report No. 106–991]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 2796) to

provide for the conservation and development ofwater and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projectsfor improvements to rivers and harbors of theUnited States, and for other purposes.

OCTOBER 18, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
§ 243.5 Who can own imported reindeer, and what limitations apply? ( a ) Anyone, including non-Natives, may own imported reindeer in Alaska for any legitimate purpose, subject to State and Federal animal health laws and regulations.
( b ) Imported reindeer must not be intermingled with, or be bred to, Alaskan reindeer without our written consent. Any offspring resulting from a mating with Alaskan reindeer are considered Alaskan reindeer and a non-Native owner may not maintain these reindeer alive in Alaska.
( c ) This paragraph applies if a non-Native owner of imported reindeer in Alaska contracts with a Native reindeer owner to keep and manage the imported reindeer. The non-Native owner must: ( 1 ) Distinguish the imported reindeer from the Alaskan reindeer by applying a distinctly different permanent earmark or tattoo on all imported reindeer; and
( 2 ) Register the earmark or tattoo with the State Division of Agriculture book of livestock brand marks.
### [§683. Renumbered §12315]
# C_2006310EN.01001402.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/14

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance 17 October 2006 — Bonnet v Court of Justice

(Case T-406/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Recruitment - Member of the temporary staff - Reader of judgments - Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Measure adversely affecting an official - Relationship of trust)

(2006/C 310/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: André Bonnet (Saint-Pierre-de-Vassols, France) (represented by: H. de Lepinau, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities (represented by: M. Schauss, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Court of Justice's measures of 11 February and 4 March 2004 ending, as regards the applicant, the procedure for recruitment to the post of reader of judgments at the Chambers of the President of the Court and of the decision making an appointment to the post at issue, and, secondly, an application for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

1

---
8/13/10 page of



### INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT (IRExR)

Chemical ID: P-10-0476

Results Table: Dose, Concentration, and Days Exceeded Results Summary

Exposure Scenario 1 Water Landfill Stack Air Fugitive Air

Drinking Water Fish Ingestion

ADR LADD ADR LADD 7Q10 4

CC = PDM

Days

Exceede

d LADD ADR LADD ADR LADD

Release

activity(ies) 2 ;

exposure

calculation(s) 3 mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day μg/l # Days mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day

1 Exposure scenario titles consist of release activity followed by exposure calculation abbreviation.

2 Release activities are from engineering report's Manufact uring (Mfg), Processing (Proc) and Use release activity

labels. Multiple release activities are combined in one expo sure scenario if their releases occur at same location.

3 Exposure calculations are Acute Dose Rate (ADR), Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD), and Probabilistic

Dilution Model (PDM). There may be one, two, or all three exposure calculations per exposure scenario.

CC is the aquatic concentration of concern.

4 This column displays concentration values for the 7Q10 streamflow, which is defined as the average daily

streamflow of the seven consecutive days of lowest flow within a ten year period.

Remarks:



### Results Table: Exposure Based (X B)/Persistent (P2B2) Criteria

Parameter



### recommendations?: (default is NA)8/13/10 page of

INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-10-0476 Assessor: Sherer/SS

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES

Scenario#:1 Number of Release Sites: 1.

Release Activity:

Remarks:8/13/10 page of

INITIAL REVIEW EX POSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-10-0476

kg)

Inhalation Comments:8/13/10 page of8/13/10 page of

INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT8/13/10 page of

INITIAL REVIEW EX POSURE REPORT

CALCULATION: Screen3

EXPOSED POPULATION: Adult8/13/10 page of8/13/10 page of

INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT8/13/10 page of

INITIAL REVIEW EX POSURE REPORT

Comments:8/13/10 page of

INITIAL REVIEW EX POSURE REPORT

Comments:8/13/10 page of8/13/10 page of

INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT8/13/10 page of

INITIAL REVIEW EX POSURE REPORT

Comments:8/13/10 page of

INITIAL REVIEW EX POSURE REPORT

Comments:8/13/10 page of
# C_2006212EN.01000301.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-308/04 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Graphite electrodes - Article 81(1) EC - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Leniency Notice - Principle of non bis in idem)

non bis in idem

(2006/C 212/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: SGL Carbon AG (represented by M. Klusmann and K. Beckmann, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by A. Bouquet, H. Gading and M. Schneider, Agents), Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo (Japan), Nippon Carbon Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo, Showa Denko KK, established in Tokyo, GrafTech International Ltd, formerly UCAR International Inc., established in Wilmington (United States), SEC Corp., established in Amagasaki (Japan), The Carbide/Graphite Group Inc., established in Pittsburgh (United States)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Joined Cases T-236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-252/01 Tokai Carbon and Others as regards Case T-239/01 — Annulment of Commission Decision 2002/271/EC of 18 July 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes (OJ 2002 L 100, p. 1)

Tokai Carbon and Others

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders SGL Carbon AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SGL Carbon AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

1

---
§ 700.713 Tenure of grazing permits. ( a ) All active regular grazing permits shall be for five years and shall be automatically reissued for another five-year period provided the permittee is not in violation of § 700.711 or § 700.715 or § 700.719 or § 700.723 or § 700.725 of the regulations. Permits will initially be issued with an ending date of October 31 of the fifth year following the date of initial issuance.
( b ) Amendments to these regulations extending or limiting the tenure of grazing permits are applicable and become a condition of all previously granted permits.
### §2475. Consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering of organizations, functions, or activities: notification requirements

(a) Strategic Sourcing Plan of Action Defined.—In this section, the term "Strategic Sourcing Plan of Action" means a Strategic Sourcing Plan of Action for the Department of Defense (as identified in the Department of Defense Interim Guidance dated February 29, 2000, or any successor Department of Defense guidance or directive) in effect for a fiscal year.

(b) Notification of Decision To Execute Plan.—If a decision is made to consolidate, restructure, or reengineer an organization, function, or activity of the Department of Defense pursuant to a Strategic Sourcing Plan of Action described in subsection (a), and such consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering would result in a manpower reduction affecting 50 or more personnel of the Department of Defense (including military and civilian personnel)—

(1) the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report describing that decision, including—

(A) a projection of the savings that will be realized as a result of the consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering, compared with the cost incurred by the Department of Defense to perform the function or to operate the organization or activity prior to such proposed consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering;

(B) a description of all missions, duties, or military requirements that will be affected as a result of the decision to consolidate, restructure, or reengineer the organization, function, or activity that was analyzed;

(C) the Secretary's certification that the consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering will not result in any diminution of military readiness;

(D) a schedule for performing the consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering; and

(E) the Secretary's certification that the entire analysis for the consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering is available for examination; and

(2) the head of the Defense Agency or the Secretary of the military department concerned may not implement the plan until 30 days after the date that the agency head or Secretary submits notification to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives of the intent to carry out such plan.

(Added Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title III, §353(a)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–72; amended Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, §1051(a)(17), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1561.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2017—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–91 amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) required the Secretary of Defense to submit the Strategic Sourcing Plan of Action to Congress annually.