alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006326EN.01005503.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/55

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2006 — Jabones Pardo v OHIM — Quimi Romar (YUKI)

(Case T-278/04) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national word mark YUPI - Application for the Community word mark YUKI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Findings of OHIM - Admissibility)

(2006/C 326/119)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Jabones Pardo, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially J. Astiz Suárez, then A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Quimi Romar, SL (Moncada, Spain) (Moncada, Spain) (represented by: A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez and J. Carlos Heder, lawyers)

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 April 2004 (Joined Cases R 547/2003-1 and R 604/2003-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Jabones Pardo, SA and Quimi Romar, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 April 2004 (Joined Cases R 547/2003-1 and R 604/2003-1) is annulled in so far as it allowed the intervener's appeal concerning ‘soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices’, falling within Class 3, and ‘sanitary preparations’, falling within Class 5, referred to in the Community trade mark application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 April 2004 (Joined Cases R 547/2003-1 and R 604/2003-1) is annulled in so far as it allowed the intervener's appeal concerning ‘soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices’, falling within Class 3, and ‘sanitary preparations’, falling within Class 5, referred to in the Community trade mark application.

| 2. | OHIM is to bear its own costs and pay half of the costs incurred by Jabones Pardo, SA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

OHIM is to bear its own costs and pay half of the costs incurred by Jabones Pardo, SA.

| 3. | Quimi Romar, SL is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Quimi Romar, SL is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2 to 2007 10-Q

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 of Convergys Corporation (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2007 (the Report), I, Earl C. Shanks, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Earl C. Shanks     
|Earl C. Shanks         
|Chief Financial Officer

November 6, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Convergys Corporation and will be retained by Convergys Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
### §950h. Appellate counsel

(a) Appointment.—The Secretary of Defense shall, by regulation, establish procedures for the appointment of appellate counsel for the United States and for the accused in military commissions under this chapter. Appellate counsel shall meet the qualifications of counsel for appearing before military commissions under this chapter.

(b) Representation of United States.—Appellate counsel appointed under subsection (a)—

(1) shall represent the United States in any appeal or review proceeding under this chapter before the United States Court of Military Commission Review; and

(2) may, when requested to do so by the Attorney General in a case arising under this chapter, represent the United States before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or the Supreme Court.

(c) Representation of Accused.—The accused shall be represented by appellate counsel appointed under subsection (a) before the United States Court of Military Commission Review, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the Supreme Court, and by civilian counsel if retained by the accused. Any such civilian counsel shall meet the qualifications under paragraph (3) of section 949c(b) of this title for civilian counsel appearing before military commissions under this chapter and shall be subject to the requirements of paragraph (7) of that section.

(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, §1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2604.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 950h, added Pub. L. 109–366, §3(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2622, related to appellate counsel, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 111–84.
### [§684. Renumbered §12316]
#### QUALITY WATER SUPPLY, INC. v. CITY OF WILMINGTON

No. 85P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 400

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 May 1990. Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 May 1990.
# Instructions

mailto:InformationQuality@omb.eop.govmailto:mschwab@omb.eop.govmailto:james_h_kim@omb.eop.gov

# Section I

# Section II

# Section III

# Section IV
# C_2006310EN.01002806.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/28

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Visser's Oliehandel Horst v Commission

(Case T-281/99) (1)

1

(2006/C 310/57)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.

1

---
H. Res. 564

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 27, 2000.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.

4865) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the 1993 income tax increase on Social Security benefits. The

bill shall be considered as read for amendment. All points of

order against the bill and against its consideration are

waived. The amendment recommended by the Committee on

Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered

as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further amendment printed in the report of the Committee on

Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative Pomeroy of North Dakota or his designee, which shall be

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

•HRES 564 EH

considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one

hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
REGISTRATION 69361-32
### [§644. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1622(b), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2961]

Section, added Pub. L. 96–513, title I, §105, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2867; amended Pub. L. 102–190, div. A, title XI, §1115, Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1503, related to authority to suspend officer personnel laws. See section 123 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1996, see section 1691(b)(1) of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as an Effective Date note under section 10001 of this title.
§ 700.289 Petitions for amendment: Processing and initial decision. ( a ) *Decisions on petitions.* In reviewing a record in response to a petition for amendment, the accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness of the record shall be assessed against the criteria set out in § 700.261. In addition, personnel records shall be assessed against the criteria for determining record quality published in the Federal Personnel Manual and the Commission Manual addition thereto.
( b ) *Authority to decide.* An initial decision on a petition for amendment may be made only by the Privacy Act Officer.
( c ) *Acknowledgement of receipt.* Unless processing of a petition is completed within ten (10) days (Saturdays, Sundays and public legal holidays excepted), the receipt of the petition for amendment shall be acknowledged in writing by the system manager to whom it is directed.
( d ) *Inadequate petitions.* ( 1 ) If a petition does not meet the requirements of § 700.287, the petitioner shall be so advised and shall be told what additional information must be submitted to meet the requirements of § 700.287.
( 2 ) If the petitioner fails to submit the additional information within a reasonable time, his petition may be rejected. The rejection shall be in writing and shall meet the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section.
( e ) *Form of decision.* ( 1 ) A decision on a petition for amendment shall be in writing and shall state concisely the basis for the decision.
( 2 ) If the petitioned for amendment is rejected, in whole or part, the decision shall advise the petitioner that the rejection may be appealed to the Executive Director by writing to the Privacy Act Officer, Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission, Box KK, Flagstaff, Arizona 86002, and that the appeal must be received by this official within twenty (20) days (Saturdays, Sundays and public legal holidays excepted) of the date of the decision.
( f ) *Implementation of initial decision.* If a petitioned for amendment is accepted, in whole or part, the appropriate Commission Division maintaining the record shall: ( 1 ) Correct the record accordingly and,
( 2 ) Where an accounting of disclosures has been made pursuant to § 700.269 advise all previous recipients of the record that the correction was made and the substance of the correction.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

86-23 

October 15, 1986 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4207(a) Reduction or Waiver of Complete Withdrawal Liability. Regulation Authority.

29 CFR 2647 Reduction or Waiver of Withdrawal Liability. 

OPINION: 

This responds to your request for the opinion of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) regarding the

application of the PBGC's regulations issued under Section 4207(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Atc,

as amended (ERISA). Specifically, you ask whether, under 29 CFR § 2647.8(d), a withdrawn employer "otherwise

combines with an employer that has an obligation to contribute to the plan from which the first employer withdrew,"

when the withdrawn employer purchases the assets of a division of another contributing employer. 

In the fact situation you present, an employer withdraws from a multiemployer plan, thereby incurring withdrawal

liability. Later, the employer acquires the assets of a division of another employer. Before and after this acquisition,

the employees in this division are covered by the multiemployer plan and contributions are made on their behalf. The

purchasing employer, in combination with the purchased division, meets the requirements for waiver of its withdrawal

liability under 29 CFR 2647.4, [*2] but does not meet the additional requirements placed on combined entities by 29

CFR § 2647.8(d). 

Section 2647.8(d) governs the waiver of withdrawal liability for an employer who has reentered a multiemployer

plan as the result of any consolidating transaction with a contributing employer, e.g., merger, purchase of assets, etc.

It permits waiver of withdrawal liability only if the contribution base units of the eligible employer (i.e., the employer

after the transaction) in the measurement period equal at least the contribution base units of the employer that did not

withdraw in the last plan year ending before the measurement period plus an amount equal to 30 percent of the base year

contribution base units of the employer that withdrew. Thus, this test looks to an overall increase in the plan's

contribution base units. 

Because § 2647.8(d) expressly states that it applies when an employer "merges or otherwise combines" with another

employer, this phrase includes the purchase of the assets of the covered operations of another employer as described in

you inquiry. The phrase "otherwise combines" casts a broad net to cover those acquisitions and other transactions that

cannot be [*3] strictly classified as mergers, but nevertheless have the potential for increasing a withdrawn employer's

contribution base units without increasing the contribution base units received by the plan. 

If you have further questions, please contact the attorney handling this matter, John Foster, of the PBGC's Corporate

Policy and Regulations Department. His telephone number is 202-778-8850. 

Edward R. Mackiewicz 

General Counsel
### [§2433. Repealed. Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1850(l), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4271]

Section, added Pub. L. 97–252, title XI, §1107(a)(1), Sept. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 741, §139b; amended Pub. L. 98–94, title XII, §1268(1), Sept. 24, 1983, 97 Stat. 705; Pub. L. 98–525, title XII, §1242(b), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2607; Pub. L. 99–145, title XIII, §1303(a)(2), Nov. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 738; renumbered §2433 and amended Pub. L. 99–433, title I, §§101(a)(5), 110(d)(14), (g)(8), Oct. 1, 1986, 100 Stat. 995, 1003, 1004; Pub. L. 99–500, §101(c) [title X, §961(b)], Oct. 18, 1986, 100 Stat. 1783–82, 1783–176, and Pub. L. 99–591, §101(c) [title X, §961(b)], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341–82, 3341–176; Pub. L. 99–661, div. A, title IX, formerly title IV, §961(b), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3956, renumbered title IX, Pub. L. 100–26, §3(5), Apr. 21, 1987, 101 Stat. 273; Pub. L. 100–26, §7(b)(4), (k)(7), Apr. 21, 1987, 101 Stat. 279, 284; Pub. L. 100–180, div. A, title XIII, §1314(a)(1), Dec. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 1175; Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title VIII, §811(a), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1490; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XIV, §1484(k)(10), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1719; Pub. L. 102–484, div. A, title VIII, §817(d), Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2456; Pub. L. 103–35, title II, §201(i)(2), May 31, 1993, 107 Stat. 100; Pub. L. 103–355, title III, §§3002(a)(2), 3003, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3328, 3329; Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title VIII, §833, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1842; Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title VIII, §801(a), (b)(1), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2004; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title VIII, §802(a)–(c), (d)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3367–3370; Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title II, §213(a), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2121; Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title IX, §942(e), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 288; Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title VIII, §811(c), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4522; Pub. L. 111–23, title II, §206(a)(3), May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1728; Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title X, §1073(c)(4), Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2474; Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title X, §1075(b)(34), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4371; Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §809(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1840; Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1850(b)(1), (c), (d), (e)(1), (f), (g)(1), (h)(1), (i)(1), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4265–4269, related to unit cost reports. See sections 4371 to 4375 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Jan. 1, 2022, with additional provisions for delayed implementation and applicability of existing law, see section 1801(d) of Pub. L. 116–283, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SECTION 906

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael A. Hart, the Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of TCG BDC, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | the Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 21, 2017/s/ Michael A. HartMichael A. Hart
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)




|* | The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2006261EN.01000301.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-484/04) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social policy - Protection of the health and safety of workers - Directive 93/104/EC - Organisation of working time - Article 17(1) - Derogation - Articles 3 and 5 - Right to minimum daily and weekly rest periods)

(2006/C 261/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and N. Yerrell, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Bethell and E. O'Neill, Agents, and K. Smith, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 17(1) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) — Scope of the derogation — Implementation of provisions relating to rest periods

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by applying the derogation provided for in Article 17(1) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000, to workers whose working time is partially not measured or predetermined or can be determined partially by the worker himself and by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the rights of workers to daily and weekly rest, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 17(1), 3 and 5 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by applying the derogation provided for in Article 17(1) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000, to workers whose working time is partially not measured or predetermined or can be determined partially by the worker himself and by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the rights of workers to daily and weekly rest, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 17(1), 3 and 5 of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 5. 2. 2005.

1

---
St. Mary's Cement

SNCR Cost Effectiveness Calculations

Capital Costs

Purchased Equipment Company, from Environ Report, 

SNCR $ 1,371,630 inc. $400,000 for winterizing

Instrumentation 10% $ 137,163 OAQPS CCM

Freight 5% $ 68,582 OAQPS CCM

Subtotal P.E.C. $ 1,577,375

Installation

Foundations 12% $ 189,285

Handling, erection 40% $ 630,950

Electrical 1% $ 15,774

Piping 30% $ 473,212

Insulation 1% $ 15,774

Painting 1% $ 15,774

Subtotal, Inst. 85% $ 1,340,768

Indirect Costs

Engineering 10% $ 157,737

Construction, Field 10% $ 157,737

Contractor fees 10% $ 157,737

Start-up 1% $ 15,774

Performance test 1% $ 15,774

Contingencies 3% $ 47,321

$ 552,081

Total Direct Costs $ 3,470,224

Annual Costs

Operating

Operator 1/2 hr/shift $25.38 $ 12,690

Supervisor 15% of operator $ 1,904

Reagent $ 1,440,000 Company estimate; see notes

$450/ton pure urea, 40% control

Maintenance

Labor 1/2 hr/shift, 8000 hr $ 8,885

Materials 100% of maint. Labor $ 8,885

Electricity $0.07/kW-hr, 100kW $ 28,000 "Cooler season" 4000 hours
 (No production losses - see notes)

Total Direct Annual (Maint+Operating) $ 1,500,364

Indirect Annual Costs

Overhead 60% of O+M - Elec $ - OAQPS CCM

Administrative 2% of TCI $ 69,404

Property Tax (not allowed in MI)

Insurance 1% of TCI $ 34,702

Capital Recovery 11% $ 381,031 7% over 15 years

Subtotal, IAC $ 485,137

Total Annual Cost: DC + IAC $ 1,985,501

Cost Effectiveness Tons 2296 40% of 5741

$/ton $ 865
Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, who is carrying out the functions of chief executive officer for Brookfield Property Partners L.P. (the “Partnership”) pursuant to an Amended and Restated Master Services Agreement, dated March 3, 2015, among Brookfield Asset Management Inc., the Partnership, Brookfield Property L.P., and certain other parties thereto, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (i) the annual report of the Partnership on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.





Dated: March 9, 2017





/s/ Brian W. KingstonBrian W. KingstonChief Executive Officer, Brookfield Property Group LLC