alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2013145EN.01000201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/2 |

---

List of recognised hop producer groups and associations

2013/C 145/02

This publication is in conformity with Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1299/2007 on the recognition of producer groups for hops.

BELGIUM

Pacohop SV, Korte Werf 9, 8970 Poperinge, BELGIЁ

GERMANY

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Hopfenverwertungsgenossenschaft e. G., Kellerstraße 1, 85283 Wolnzach, DEUTSCHLAND |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Hopfenverwertungsgenossenschaft Spalt e. G., Gewerbepark Hügelmühle 40, 91174 Spalt, DEUTSCHLAND |

SPAIN

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Grupo de cultivadores de Lúpulo de Carrizo de la Ribera (APA no 1), Miralrio 2, Villanueva de Carrizo (León), ESPAÑA |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | SAT «Orbigo» no 9691 (APA no 3), Independencia 2, 2o, 24001 León, ESPAÑA |

FRANCE

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Groupement de producteurs «Cophoudal», 22 rue des roses, 67170 Brumath, FRANCE |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Groupement de producteurs «Coophounord», 870 route de Bailleul, 59270 Berthen, FRANCE |

AUSTRIA

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Erzeugergemeinschaft für Hopfen in Leutschach, Eichberg 3, 8463 Leutschach, ÖSTERREICH |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Hopfenbaugenossenschaft & EZG, Linzer Straße 5, 4120 Neufelden, ÖSTERREICH |

POLAND

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Grupa Producentów Rolnych Spółdzielnia „ALFA CHMIEL”, Żulice 16, 22-652 Telatyn, POLSKA/POLAND |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Spółdzielnia Chmiel, Spiczyn 19, 21-077 Spiczyn, POLSKA/POLAND |

SLOVENIA

Hmeljarska zadruga z.o.o., Vrečarjeva 14, SI-3310 Žalec, SLOVENIJA

SLOVAKIA

„SLOVCHMEL“ družstvo, 916 24 Horná Streda, SLOVENSKO/SLOVAKIA

UNITED KINGDOM

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Wealden Hops Ltd, Congelow, Benover Road, Yalding, Maidstone, Kent, ME18 6ET, UNITED KINGDOM |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Botanix, Hop Pocket Lane, Paddock Wood, Tonbridge, Kent, TN12 6DQ, UNITED KINGDOM |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | Hawkbrand Hops Ltd, The Farm, Bosbury, Ledbury, Herefordshire, HR8 1NW, UNITED KINGDOM |

---
§ 273.118 Are there additional authorities an Indian Education Committee can exercise? The organizational papers and by-laws of the Indian Education Committee may include additional powers and duties that would permit the Committee to: ( a ) Participate in negotiations concerning all contracts;
( b ) Make an annual assessment of the learning needs of Indian children in the community affected;
( c ) Have access to all reports, evaluations, surveys, and other program and budget related documents determined necessary by the Committee to carry out its responsibilities, subject only to the provisions of § 273.180;
( d ) Request periodic reports and evaluations regarding the Indian education program;
( e ) Establish a local grievance policy and procedures related to programs in the education plan;
( f ) Meet regularly with the professional staff serving Indian children and with the local education agency;
( g ) Hold committee meetings on a regular basis which are open to the public; and
( h ) Have such additional powers as are consistent with these regulations.
### [§2303a. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–577, title III, §302(c)(1), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3077]

Section, Pub. L. 98–525, title XII, §1212(a), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2590, related to publication of proposed regulations.

Section, pursuant to section 1212(b) of Pub. L. 98–525, was to have taken effect with respect to procurement policies, regulations, procedures, or forms first proposed to be issued by an agency on or after the date which was 30 days after the date of enactment of Pub. L. 98–525. Pub. L. 98–525 was approved Oct. 19, 1984. However, before that effective date, the section was repealed by Pub. L. 98–577.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-93 

October 22, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 208 Mergers, Consolidations and other Transfers of Plan Assets

1015(l). (IRC § 414) Definitions and Special Rules. Mergers, Consolidations and Other Transfers of Plan Assets 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter to us of October 3, 1975, regarding possible retroactive application of Section 208

of ERISA and Section 414(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. The PBGC's role under Section 208 of ERISA and Section

414(1) of the Internal Revenue Code is a limited one, i.e. to determine to what extent those paragraphs shall apply in the

case of a multiemployer plan. It is our position that pending such a determination, those paragraphs do not apply in the

case of a multiemployer plan. Further, it is our present inclination to apply such regulations (or other form of

determination) only prospectively. 

I trust this answers your inquiry. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
             (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of InkSure Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     The Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the "Form
10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

     Dated: November 14, 2007             /s/ Elie Housman
                                          ----------------
                                          Elie Housman, Chief Executive Officer
                                          and Chairman
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)

     Dated: November 14, 2007             /s/ Mickey Brandt
                                          -----------------
                                          Mickey Brandt, Chief Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 700.249 Action on appeals. ( a ) *Authority.* Appeals from initial denials of requests for records shall be decided for the Commission by the Executive Director after consultation with the Commission's legal counsel.
( b ) *Time limit.* A final determination on any appeal shall be made within twenty (20) days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and public legal holidays) after receipt of the appeal.
( c ) *Extensions of time.* ( 1 ) If the time limit for responding to the initial request for a record was not extended under the provisions of § 700.245 or was extended for fewer than ten (10) working days, the time for processing of the appeal may be extended by the Executive Director to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the appeal, but in no event may the extension, when taken together with any extension made during processing of the initial request, result in an aggregate extension with respect to any one request of more than ten (10) working days. The time for processing of an appeal may be extended only if one or more of the unusual circumstances listed in § 700.245(c) requires an extension.
( 2 ) The Executive Director shall, in writing, advise the appellant of the reasons for the extension and the date on which a final determination of the appeal is expected to be dispatched.
( 3 ) If no determination on the appeal has been reached at the end of the twenty (20) working-day period for deciding an appeal, or the last extension thereof, the requester is deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies, giving rise to a right of review in a district court of the United States as specified in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4). When no determination can be reached within the applicable time limit, the appeal will nevertheless continue to be processed. On expiration of the time limit, the requester shall be informed of the reason for the delay, of the date on which a determination may be expected to be dispatched, and of his right to seek judicial review. The requester may be asked to consider delaying resort to his right to judicial review until the date on which the determination on his appeal is expected to be dispatched.
( d ) *Form of decision.* The final determination on an appeal shall be in writing and shall state the basis for the determination. If the determination is to release the requested records or portions thereof, the Freedom of Information Act Officer shall immediately make the records available or instruct the appropriate bureau official to make them immediately available. If the determination upholds in whole or part the initial denial of a request for records, the determination shall advise the requester of his right to obtain judicial review in the U.S. District Court for the district in which the withheld records are located, or in which the requester resides or has his principal place of business or in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial.
( e ) *Distribution of copies.* Copies of final determinations issued by the Commission shall be provided to the Commission's legal counsel.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Premium Filings 

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 Filings

##           Online Premium Filing with My PAA          

Log into My PAA, find out how to use My PAA, what’s new, the use of private-sector software and more.

##           Premium Filing Payment & Instructions          

View the latest instructions for filing premiums, or instructions for a prior year, as well as illustrative forms and information on where filings and payments should be sent.

##           Account History Guide          

Find a guide to interpret the account history report that is available on the My PAA Plan page.

##           Premium Rates          

Find information about PBGC’s current and past premium rates for both single-employer and multiemployer pension plans.

##           Correcting Filings and Reconciling Estimates      

Find information on how to correct errors in filings, submit amended filings, or reconcile an earlier estimated premium filing, and on PBGC refunds of overpayments. See the “Correcting Filings and Reconciling Estimates” section available under each year's Comprehensive Premium Filing Instructions on the Premium Filing Payment and Instruction webpage.

##           Late Payment Charges      

Late payment charges arise when you pay some, or all, of the premium owed after the due date. Late charges include both interest and penalty. The current rules for late payment changes apply to late premium payments for plan years beginning in 2016 or later. Different rules apply for earlier plan years.

The “Late Payment Charges” section of each year’s Comprehensive Premium Filing Instructions provides detailed information about late charges that apply with respect to that year (e.g., how interest and penalties are determined, automatic penalty waivers, how to request a penalty waiver).  Instructions for the current and prior years are available on the Premium Filing Payment and Instruction webpage.

##           Filing Due Dates          

View due dates for plan filing including exceptions and information on IRS extensions.

##           Business Codes          

One of the data items required to be reported in a premium filing is the business codes that best describes the nature of the plan sponsor's business (or main business activity of the employers and/or employee organizations if more than one employer or employee organization is involved). The applicable Business Codes for each year beginning with 2014 can be found here.

November 29, 2023

##           Premium Compliance Evaluation Program      

This program helps ensure that plans follow our premium regulations and pay the correct amount. We also offer compliance assistance to help practitioners.

##           Termination Premiums      

Learn about termination premiums that companies must pay PBGC when certain underfunded plans are terminated.
151 So.2d 744

#### John WILBANKS v. STATE.

5 Div. 767.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 4, 1963.

'Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and Geo. D. Mentz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Goodwyn & Smith, Montgomery, Beddow, Embry & Beddow, Birmingham, and Howard & Dunn, Wetumpka, opposed.

LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice.

Petition of the State, by its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Wilbanks v. State, Ala.App., 151 So.2d 741.

Writ denied.

LAWSON, GOODWYN and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0579

_________________

ALLAN G. HOLMS, a Montana Corporation

d/b/a HOLMS & ASSOCIATES,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

MARK A. BRETZ,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the 

Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellant’s Opening Brief 

filed on March 19, 2021, this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with 

the following Rule. 

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(h) requires that the relevant judgment, order, findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, jury instruction, ruling or decision from which the appeal is taken, 

together with any written memorandum or rationale of the court, be contained in 

Appellant’s brief to this Court. Although it makes reference to an attached appendix, the 

appendix was not submitted, and Appellants’ brief does not include a copy of the relevant 

judgment(s) or order(s). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellant Mark A. Bretz shall file 

electronically an appendix including the relevant judgment(s) or order(s) from the 

District Court. Pursuant to Rule 12(4) of the Temporary Electronic Filing Rules, 

Appellant shall submit a paper copy of the appendix with each of the seven paper copies 

of the electronically filed brief.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained 

in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the relevant judgment or order.

The Clerk is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to counsel for the 

Appellant and to all counsel of record. Electronically signed by:

Beth Baker

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 22 2021

03/22/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0579
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-25 

January 16, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041(a) Termination by Plan Administrator. Filing of Notice of Intent to Terminate

4048 Date of Termination 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of December 23, 1974 requesting clarification of when a pension plan is deemed

to have been terminated under the termination insurance provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

of 1974. You state that an organization made a decision to terminate its pension plan and directed the trustee to distribute

the trust to the employees. You ask whether the plan is deemed to have been terminated on the date when the

organization directed the trustee to make the distribution or on the date when the distribution was actually made. 

In our view neither the instruction to distribute assets nor the distribution of assets necessarily constitutes

"termination" of a plan. Rather, a plan ordinarily terminates before distribution is ordered or made, for example, on the

date accruals and contributions cease. cf. Employee Retirement Income Security Act § 4082(b) (4). 

We hope this information is helpful to you. 

Steven E. Schanes 

Acting Executive Director
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 23563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09306]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9805-2; CERCLA-04-2013-3751]

LWD, Inc. Superfund Site; Calvert City, Marshall County, 
Kentucky; Notice of Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement with one 
hundred twenty-five (125) parties and nineteen (19) Federal Agencies 
addressing past costs concerning the LWD, Inc., Superfund Site located 
in Calvert City, Marshall County, Kentucky. The settlement addresses 
costs from a federally funded Removal Action taken by EPA at the Site 
and response costs incurred by the settling parties in connection with 
the Site pursuant to a 2007 work AOC.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until 
May 20, 2013. The Agency will consider all comments received and may 
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received 
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from EPA's 
Environmental Protection Specialist, Ms. Paula V. Painter. Submit your 
comments by Site name LWD, Inc., Superfund Site by one of the following 
methods:
    www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/enforcement/enforcement.html Email. Painter.Paula@epa.gov U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Attn: Paula V. 
Painter, Superfund Division, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

    Dated: April 11, 2013.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund 
Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-09306 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
[No. 4827.]

#### Gumaer et al. v. Jackson.

1. Appellate Practice — Objection Made for First Time on Appeal.

Where, in an action on a promissory note, the note was introduced in evidence bearing plaintiff’s indorsement, and the defendant objected to its introduction upon the sole ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action, he cannot for the first time on appeal object that the proof of ownership was not sufficient in the absence of an explanation of plaintiff’s indorsement. — P. 41.

2. Bills and Notes. — Indorsement—Possession—Prima Facie Evidence of Ownership.

Possession of a promissory note, though indorsed by plaintiff, is prima facie evidence of ownership. — P. 41.

*40
      *Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County.*

*Hon. M. 8. Bailey, Judge.*

Action by William S. Jackson against E. L. Gumaer and A. E. Gumaer. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.

*Affirmed.*

Mr. James T. Locke, for appellants.

Messrs. Champion *&*Blunt, for appellee.

Mr.-Justice Steele

delivered tbe opinion of the court:

The complaint alleges the assignment, for a valuable consideration and before maturity, to William S. Jackson of a certain promissory note for the principal sum of three thousand dollars, payable two years after January 2, 1901. The nóte is set out in the complaint. The plaintiff, alleging that he is the legal holder thereof, prays judgment for three thousand dollars and interest at seven per cent, from the date of the note. The answer -admits the execution of the note, and pleads an extension agreement and that the plaintiff had knowledge of the agree-' ment. The replication denies the material parts of the answer.

The trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, and the defendants appeal. At the trial the note was received in,evidence over defendants ’ objection. Plaintiff testified that he was the owner of the note at the time of the institution of the suit and that there was due $3,609.56. The plaintiff rested. The defendants offered no testimony. The assignments are that the judgment is contrary to law and is unsupported by the evidence, and that there was not sufficient evidence of ownership. The note bears the indorsement of the payee as well as that of William *41S. Jackson. There is no merit in the appeal. The defendants’ objection to the introdnction of the note was that the complaint did not state a cause of action. If the defendants had then objected that the ownership of the note had not been sufficiently proved and that it devolved upon the plaintiff to explain his indorsement of the note, the plaintiff might have overcome the objection by the introduction of further proof, or might have explained his indorsement. Having failed to do this at the proper time, they cannot now be heard to say that the proof of ownership was not sufficient. Moreover, there is' no merit in the objection; if the point that the objection here is different than at the trial be waived, the possession of the note is *prima facie*evidence of ownership.

The judgment is affirmed. *Affirmed.*

Chief Justice Gabbert and Mr. Justice Campbell' concur.
Editorial Note on Part 224
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

§ 224.85 When may a Tribe enter into a lease or business agreement? A Tribe may enter into a lease or business agreement for the purpose of energy resource development for: ( a ) Exploration for, extraction of, or other development of the Tribe's energy mineral resources on tribal land including, but not limited to, marketing or distribution;
( b ) Construction or operation of an electric production, generation, transmission, or distribution facility (including a facility that produces electricity from renewable energy resources) located on tribal land;
( c ) Construction or operation of a facility to process or refine energy resources, at least a portion of which have been developed on tribal land; or
( d ) Pooling, unitization, or communitization of the energy mineral resources of the Indian tribe located on tribal land with any other energy mineral resource (including energy mineral resources owned by the Indian tribe or an individual Indian in fee, trust, or restricted status or by any other persons or entities) if the owner, or, if appropriate, lessee, of the resources has consented or consents to the pooling, unitization, or communitization of the other resources under any lease or agreement.
[84 FR 69613, Dec. 18, 2019]
### §§1231, 1232. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–230, §24, Sept. 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 466

Sections, act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title II, §208(a), (b), 42 Stat. 1466, related to deposit of bonds or obligations of United States as condition to issue of permit and determination as to grant of permit, respectively.
§ 290.17 What documents must the Indian tribe include with the tribal revenue allocation plan? You must include: ( a ) A written request for approval of the tribal revenue allocation plan; and
( b ) A tribal resolution or other document, including the date and place of adoption and the result of any vote taken, that certifies you have adopted the tribal revenue allocation plan in accordance with applicable tribal law.