alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006241EN.01000601.xml

| 6.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 October 2006

(2006/C 241/06)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2721 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 149,45 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4565 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67610 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2895 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5887 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3780 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5767 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,211 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 274,40 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9361 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5304 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,60 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,150 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9090 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7019 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4321 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9059 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9154 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0135 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 207,48 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,9818 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0548 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3878 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 716,04 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6864 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,605 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,0500 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,816 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2721

JPY

Japanese yen

149,45

DKK

Danish krone

7,4565

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67610

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2895

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5887

ISK

Iceland króna

86,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3780

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5767

CZK

Czech koruna

28,211

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

274,40

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9361

RON

Romanian leu

3,5304

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,60

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,150

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9090

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7019

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4321

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9059

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9154

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0135

KRW

South Korean won

1 207,48

ZAR

South African rand

9,9818

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0548

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3878

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 716,04

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6864

PHP

Philippine peso

63,605

RUB

Russian rouble

34,0500

THB

Thai baht

47,816

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

77-152 

July 13, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(2) Plans Covered. Government Plans 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your request for a determination whether the * * * (the "Plan") is a governmental plan under

Section 4021(b)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act") and thus excluded from

coverage under Title IV of the Act. Your inquiry was referred to this Office by the Division of Coverage. 

As we understand the facts, the Plan is maintained by the * * * for its employees. The District was created by * *

* County as a municipal corporation and has been designated by the * * * constitution as a political subdivision of the

State. It has the authority to tax and issue bonds to generate revenue. The function of the District is to provide irrigation

water to land owners within a specific geographical area. 

Based on these facts, we have determined that the Plan is a governmental plan under Title IV. Accordingly, it is

excluded from coverage under Section 4021(b)(2) of the Act. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please

contact * * * 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
**Exhibit
      32.1**














**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE**


**OFFICER
      REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING**


**FINANCIAL
      STATEMENTS**









I,
      Neil
      Smit, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Renaissance Media Group
      LLC,
      Renaissance Media (Louisiana) LLC, Renaissance Media (Tennessee) LLC and
      Renaissance Media Capital Corporation (the "Company") in compliance with 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Company's Quarterly Report on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission:




|· | fully
              complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
              Act of 1934; and
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|· | the
              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
              respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
              Company.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------








/s/
      Neil Smit


Neil
      Smit


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


May
      12,
      2006
# C_2006281EN.01003002.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/30

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2006 — Laroche v Commission

(Case T-115/04) (1)

1

(Community officials - Career Development Review - Appraisal period 2001/2002 - Decision to close - Time-limit for challenge - Calculation)

(2006/C 281/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Yvonne Laroche (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 11 June 2003 to close the applicant's career development report for the appraisal period 2001/2002.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission decision of 11 June 2003 to close the applicant's career development report for the appraisal period 2001/2002; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission decision of 11 June 2003 to close the applicant's career development report for the appraisal period 2001/2002;

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

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.

1

---
Mark McKinnon

Dentons US LLP

1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102-4832

United States

email: mark.mckinnon@dentons.com

T 703.336.8808

F 703.336.8750

Salans FMC SNR 

Denton

McKenna Long

dentons.com

January 25, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Petition for Sixth Amendment to Exemption 11241 granted to Phoenix Air 

UNMANNED, LLC, (Docket No. FAA–2014–0692)

To Whom it May Concern:

As you are aware, this office represents Phoenix Air UNMANNED, LLC (Phoenix Air) 

regarding the above-referenced Petition for Exemption, which was granted on March 26, 2015. 

Phoenix Air hereby requests an amendment to its Exemption to add the DJI Inspire 1 as an 

approved vehicle.

 

I. The Proposed UAS Operations Meet the Requirements of Section 333 of the Reform 

Act

A. Approval is Warranted Based on the UAS's Size, Weight, Speed, and 

Operational Capability 

The FAA has already ruled that the DJI Inspire 1 meets all of the criteria set forth in 

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Accordingly, all of the 

requirements to operate these vehicles been satisfied and the petition is suitable for a summary 

grant. 

DJI Inspire 1: See, Exemption No. 11254 to Upward Aerial; Exemption No. 11659 to 

Fovea Aero Systems; Exemption No. 11668 to Sky-Forge Robotics LLC. 

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption seeking the addition of a 

supplementary UAS model that is substantially similar to the one currently authorized for use 

under the Exemption, Phoenix Air respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does 

not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

II. The Requested Amendment is in the Public Interest

The above listed UAS offer substantial safety benefits for aerial data collection over 

conventional operations using helicopters or fixed wing aircraft. 
January 25, 2016

Page 2

Salans FMC SNR Denton

McKenna Long

dentons.com

If you have any questions regarding this amendment, or require any additional 

information to process this Petition, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Very Truly Yours, 

Mark E. McKinnon

Counsel for Phoenix Air UNMANNED, LLC
§ 276.5 Recordkeeping. ( a ) The Bureau shall not impose record retention requirements over and above those established by the grantee except that financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to a Bureau grant, or to any subgrant (or negotiated contract exceeding $2500) under a grant, shall be retained for a period of three years, with the following qualifications: ( 1 ) The records shall be retained beyond the three-year period if audit findings have not been resolved.
( 2 ) Records for nonexpendable property which was acquired with Bureau grant funds shall be retained for three years after its final disposition.
( 3 ) When grant records are transferred to or maintained by the Bureau, the three-year retention requirement is not applicable to the grantee.
( b ) The retention period starts from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for grants which are renewed annually, from the date of the submission of the annual expenditure report.
( c ) Grantees are authorized, if they desire, to substitute microfilm copies in lieu of original records.
( d ) The Bureau shall request transfer of certain records to its custody from grantees when it determines that the records possess long-term retention value. However, in order to avoid duplicate recordkeeping the Bureau may make arrangements with the grantee for the grantee to retain any records which are continuously needed for joint use.
( e ) The Secretary of the Interior and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the grantees and their subgrantees which are pertinent to a specific grant program for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, transcripts and copies at government expense.
( f ) Unless otherwise required by law, the Bureau shall not place restrictions on grantees which will limit public access to the grantee's records created as part of the grant except when records must remain confidential. Following are some of the reasons for withholding records: ( 1 ) Prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
( 2 ) Specifically required by statute or Executive Order to be kept secret;
( 3 ) Commercial or financial information obtained from a person or firm on a privileged or confidential basis.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Legal Resources 
-  Opinion Letters 
-  Withdrawn Opinion Letters Archive 

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.

# Withdrawn Opinion Letters Archive

June 2, 2021
```

EX-31 

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  I, J. Theodore Borter, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
    Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of period covered by this
    annual report on Form 10-K, of the GS Mortgage Securities Trust
    2012-GCJ7 (the "Exchange Act Periodic Reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, taken as a
    whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
    to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
    light of the circumstances under which such statements
    were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
    report;

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports;

  4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required
    in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
    material respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
    assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities
    required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of
    Regulation AB and under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rules 13a-18 and
    15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
    disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described
    in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
    CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. as Servicing Function
    Participant for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Deutsche Bank National Trust
    Company Americas as Trustee, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC
    Bank, National Association as Special Servicer, National Tax Search,
    LLC as Servicing Function Participant for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Situs
    Holdings, LLC as Operating Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master
    Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator and Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian.

    Dated:   September 4, 2013

    /s/ J. Theodore Borter
    Signature

    President
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
```
### [§2504. Renumbered §4814]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2504, added Pub. L. 102–484, div. D, title XLII, §4214(a), Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2666, established Center for Study of Defense Economic Adjustment, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title XIII, §1312(a)(1), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1786.

Another prior section 2504 was renumbered section 4851 of this title.
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner; Naomi Mbys-Davidson, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 739]

Per Curiam. Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1991, was suspended by this Court’s order dated November 20, 1998 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (255 AD2d 827 [1998]).

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that she has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and the rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts *(see*22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application.

Respondent’s application is granted and she is ordered reinstated, effective immediately.

Cardona, PJ., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Guidance Document Database 
-  Partial Withdrawal 

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.

# Partial Withdrawal

                  -  Opinion Letter 85-13
Addresses the calculation of partial withdrawal liability and why the allocation fraction uses a ratio of contribution base units as opposed to contributions. 
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 82-35
Review of rules governing partial withdrawal as applied to sale of some facilities under CBA. 
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 95-03
Addresses calculation of partial withdrawal credit using the "modified presumptive method" where contributions are averaged over a 10-year period. 
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 83-20
Addresses whether a partial withdrawal occurs when an employer that operates two terminals in a metropolitan area, each under a separate collective bargaining agreement requiring contributions to the same multiemployer plan, closes one terminal but continues to perform the work of the closed terminal through the remaining terminal and other outlying terminals. 
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 86-12
Addresses calculation of the annual withdrawal liability payment amount of an employer that incurred successive partial withdrawals.  PBGC subsequently adopted a rule addressing the issue. (See 29 CFR part 4206.) 
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 85-16
Addresses whether or not an 18-month contribution holiday is a partial withdrawal. 
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 86-17
Addresses whether a partial withdrawal occurs when an employer outsources work to a third party. 
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 82-22
This opinion letter addresses the meaning of the term "facility" for purposes of partial withdrawal.  
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 92-01
Addresses the calculation of withdrawal liability in a situation where several members of a controlled group have an obligation to contribute to the same multiemployer pension plan and are sold or liquidated in a series of transactions. 
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 82-02
Addresses what may constitute a complete or partial withdrawal from a multiemployer plan as a result of certain events occurring during contract negotiations; addresses the labor dispute exemption from withdrawal liability. 
-               document            
 

-  1 
-  2 
-   Next  
-   Last
#### § 307.3 Granting of licenses, contract, and bond requirements.

A license may be granted to any person desiring to use the Government certificate of genuineness for Navajo all-wool woven fabrics who shall make application therefor and shall execute a contract acceptable to the Indian Arts and Crafts Board providing for the use of such certificates in conformity with the regulations in this part, which contract shall be accompanied by an indemnity bond acceptable to the Indian Arts and Crafts Board, in the amount of $500, conditioned upon faithful performance of such contract.
çO ST. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901 

## APR 092013 Mr. Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer CaliforniaAirResources Board Post Office Box 2815 Sacramento, California 95812 DearMr. Corey: On February 6, 2013, CARE submittedrevisions to the California State ImplementationPlan (SIP). We have reviewedmaterials submittedwiththe following rules andfoundthattheyfulfill the completeness criteriain40 CFRPart 51, AppendixV. APCD/AQMD 

# j Rule #

# j Rule Title Antelope Valley 218 Continuous Emission Monitoring Continuous Emission Monitoring Performance Antelope Valley 218.1 Specifications Antelope Valley 1 101 Secondary Lead Smelters/Sulfur Oxides Butte County 400 Permit Requirements Butte County 401 Permit Exemptions Butte County 432 Federal New Source Review Butte County 433 Rice Straw Emission Reduction Credits Butte County 1 107 Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration Permits Great Basin 221 Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration Permits Mojave Desert 1 1 13 Architectural Coatings Monterey Bay 438 Open OutdoorFires Placer County 235 Adhesives Placer County 239 Graphic Arts Operations San Diego County 20.3.1 Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration South Coast 1 147 NOx from Miscellaneous Sources South Coast 1 177 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Transfer and Dispensing Ventura County 37 Project XL VenturaCounty 67 Vacuum Producing Devices This addresses all revisions inthis submittal. Tnthe coming months wewill review the complete revisions foractionpursuantto Clean AirAct section 110(k).

1rzntedon RL’vled PaperQuestions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Robert Marinaro at (415) 972-3019. Sincerely, eborah Jordan

Director, Air Division cc: Sent by e-mail Tom Christoflç Air Pollution Control Officer, Placer County APCD Eldon Heaston, Executive Director, Antelope Valley AQMD Eldon Heaston, Executive Director, Mojave Desert AQMD Robert Kard, Air Pollution Control Officer, San Diego County APCD Ted Schade, Air Pollution Control Officer, Great Basin Unified APCD Richard Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer, Monterey Bay APCD Michael Villegas, Air Pollution Control Officer, Ventura County APCD W. James Wagoner, Air Pollution Control Officer, Butte County AQMD Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast AQMD Michael Guzzetta, Manager, Rule Evaluation Section, CARB
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

77-141 

April 28, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4022(a) Benefits Guaranteed. Type of Benefits Guaranteed

29 CFR 2605. Guaranteed Benefits 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of * * * asking whether the benefits provided by the * * * "Plan") are insured by

Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA" or "Act"). 

Title IV of ERISA insures the payment of guaranteed benefits provided in tax qualified pension plans that terminate

at a time when they are subject to Title IV coverage. The definition of a guaranteed benefit is set forth in 29 CFR §

2605.3. According to your lettar, the Plan is a tax qualified pension plan, subject to Title IV coverage. 

In order to be a guaranteed benefit, a benefit must, inter alia, qualify as a pension benefit as defined in 29 CFR §

2605.2, which states that a pension benefit: 

". . . means a benefit payable as an annuity, or one or more payments related thereto, to a participant who

permanently leaves or has left covered employment, or to a surviving beneficiary, which payments . . . provide a

substantially level income to the recipient." 

An examination of the Plan shows that it provides for a single payment, lump sum retirement benefit, or for monthly

benefit [*2] payments which are the actuarial equivalent of the lump sum benefit. While the Plan benefit in the form

of the lump sum would not be guaranteed because it does not meet the definition of a pension benefit, subject to the

statutory limitations imposed on the amount guaranteed, the actuarially equivalent monthly benefit would be guaranteed

and insured by Title IV of the Act. 

 I hope the information set forth above will enable the Company and the Union to proceed with their termination

agreement. If you have any further questions, please contact * * * the attorney assigned to this matter. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel