alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §845. Art. 45. Pleas of the accused

(a) Irregular and Similar Pleas.—If an accused after arraignment makes an irregular pleading, or after a plea of guilty sets up matter inconsistent with the plea, or if it appears that he has entered the plea of guilty improvidently or through lack of understanding of its meaning and effect, or if he fails or refuses to plead, a plea of not guilty shall be entered in the record, and the court shall proceed as though he had pleaded not guilty.

(b) Pleas of Guilty.—A plea of guilty by the accused may not be received to any charge or specification alleging an offense for which the death penalty is mandatory. With respect to any other charge or specification to which a plea of guilty has been made by the accused and accepted by the military judge, a finding of guilty of the charge or specification may be entered immediately without vote. This finding shall constitute the finding of the court unless the plea of guilty is withdrawn prior to announcement of the sentence, in which event the proceedings shall continue as though the accused had pleaded not guilty.

(c) Harmless Error.—A variance from the requirements of this article is harmless error if the variance does not materially prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 52; Pub. L. 90–632, §2(19), Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1339; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LVII, §5227, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2911.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 845(a)845(b) | 50:620(a).50:620(b). | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, §1 (Art. 45), 64 Stat. 122. |

845(b)

50:620(b).

In subsection (b), the word "may" is substituted for the word "shall".

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2016—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–328, §5227(c)(1), inserted heading.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–328, §5227(c)(2), inserted heading.

Pub. L. 114–328, §5227(a), substituted "is mandatory" for "may be adjudged" and struck out "or by a court-martial without a military judge" after "by the military judge" and ", if permitted by regulations of the Secretary concerned," after "charge or specification may".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–328, §5227(b), added subsec. (c).

1968—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 90–632, §2(19)(A), substituted "after arraignment" for "arraigned before a court-martial".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 90–632, §2(19)(B), inserted provisions covering the making and accepting of a guilty plea to charges or specifications other than charges and specifications alleging an offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged.

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

#### Effective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–632 effective first day of tenth month following October 1968, see section 4 of Pub. L. 90–632, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.
#### § 543.6-543.7 [Reserved]
### §649e. Promotions

Sections 620 through 626 of this title shall apply in promotions of officers in competitive categories of officers designated for purposes of this subchapter.

(Added Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title V, §507(a)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1746.)
§ 247.1 What definitions apply to this part? *Abandoned property* means property left at a site while the owner of the property is not actively engaged in fishing or drying or processing fish. Abandoned property may include: ( 1 ) Vehicles;
( 2 ) Mobile trailers;
( 3 ) Campers;
( 4 ) Tents;
( 5 ) Tepees;
( 6 ) Boats, or;
( 7 ) Other personal property.
*Archaeological Resource* means material remains of prehistoric or historic human life or activities that are of archaeological interest and are at least 50 years of age, and the physical site, location, or context in which they are found.
*Area Director* means the position responsible for administration of the Portland Area of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
*Campfire* means fire, not within any building, motor home or trailer, which is used for cooking, personal warmth, lighting, ceremonial or aesthetic purposes.
*Damage* means to injure, mutilate, deface, destroy, cut, chop, girdle, dig, excavate, kill or in any way harm or disturb.
*Secretary* means the Secretary of the Interior or his designee.
*Sites* means Treaty Fishing Access Sites.
*Treaty Fishing Access Sites* means all Federal lands acquired by the Secretary of the Army and Transferred to the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to Public Law 100-581, Title IV, November 1, 1988, to be administered to provide access to usual and accustomed fishing areas and ancillary fishing facilities.
*Vehicle* means any device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported, and including any motor, frame, chassis, or body of any motor vehicle, or camper shell, except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
# C_2006281EN.01003602.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — AEPI v Commission

(Case T-242/05) (1)

1

(Copyright and related rights - Proceedings for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations - Closure of procedure on a complaint submitted by an individual - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 281/63)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias (AEPI AE) (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: T. Asprogerakas-Grivas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Christoforou and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 20 April 2005 not to initiate proceedings against the Greek Republic for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations and an application that a ruling be given on the substance.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 205 of 20.8.05.

1

---
### SUBCHAPTER III—NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATIONS
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

We, Roy G. Warren, Chief Executive Officer and Tommy Kee, Chief Accounting
Officer, of Bravo! Foods International Corp. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: October 2, 2006

/s/ Roy G. Warren

Roy G. Warren
Chief Executive Officer

/s/Tommy E. Kee

Tommy E. Kee
Chief Accounting Officer

                                      57
# SFA Under Review 

# SFA Denied

# SFA Approved

# SFA Repaid-Census Adjustments

# SFA Withdrawn

# SFA Lock-Ins

# SFA Waiting List
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm



To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:



We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying
Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National
Association (“Midland” or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)
of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions (the
“Platform”), as of December 31, 2014 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B),
1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has
determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible
for the Company’s compliance with the 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, included 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 selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise
the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures
were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.
Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our
tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company 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 servicing criteria.



In our opinion, management’s assertion that Midland complied
with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014 for the Platform is fairly
stated, in all material respects.







February 25, 2015



















PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas
City, MO 64106

T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890 www.pwc.com/us
§ 292.13 When can a tribe conduct gaming activities on newly acquired lands that do not qualify under one of the exceptions in subpart B of this part? A tribe may conduct gaming on newly acquired lands that do not meet the criteria in subpart B of this part only after all of the following occur: ( a ) The tribe asks the Secretary in writing to make a Secretarial Determination that a gaming establishment on land subject to this part is in the best interest of the tribe and its members and not detrimental to the surrounding community;
( b ) The Secretary consults with the tribe and appropriate State and local officials, including officials of other nearby Indian tribes;
( c ) The Secretary makes a determination that a gaming establishment on newly acquired lands would be in the best interest of the tribe and its members and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community; and
( d ) The Governor of the State in which the gaming establishment is located concurs in the Secretary's Determination (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(A)).
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-52 

April 14, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4043(b)(3) Reportable Events. Decrease in Participants

4043(b)(8) Reportable Events. Mergers, Consolidations & other Transfers of Plan Assets 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your request for a ruling regarding the effect under Title IV of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) of the pending sale of three commonly located divisions of * * * (the Company).

This response is based upon all submissions made to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the PBGC) on bahalf

of the Company. The Company maintains two plans, the Retirement Income Plan, and the * * * Retirement Plan for

Salaried Employees, each of which will experience a reduction in the number of participants as a result of the sale. The

facility being sold accounted for greater than 20% of the active participants in each plan. 

As we understand the facts, substantially all of the Company employees at the facility, who were participants under

the Retirement Income Plan, will become employees of the Buyer of the three divisions, * * * now known as * * * (the

Buyer). The Buyer is adopting a substantially identical plan for all of these former * * * employees and is continuing

the operations at the facility. [*2] Plan assets allocable to the participants of the sold facility will be transferred to the

plan continued by the Buyer. 

As to the * * * Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees, more than 20% of the total number of its active participants

will no longer be active participants under the plan as a consequence of the sale. The Buyer is adopting a similar plan

for these employees and substantially all of them will be employed by the Buyer, who is continuing operation of the

facility. 

 Assuming that each plan is covered by Section 4021 of the Act, the following are the Title IV consequences: (1)

As to the Retirement Income Plan there occur reportable events under Sections 4043(b)(3) and (b)(8) of the Act, due,

respectively, to the reduction of greater than 20% of the active participants and the transfer of assets from the * * * to

the * * * Plan. (2) As to the * * * Retirement Plan, there occurs a reportable event under Section 4043(b)(3) of the Act,

due to the reduction of greater than 20% of the active participants. 

Each of the above events must be reported to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the PBGC) within 30 days

after the plan administrator knows or has reason to know [*3] of its occurrence. 

In response to your specific requests: 

(1) The provisions of Section 4062(e), 4063, 4064 and 4065 do not apply as a result of this sale, with respect to the

Retirement Income Plan or the * * * Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees. 

(2) As to both plans the reportable events must be timely announced to the PBGC at which time the Division of Plan

Review within the PBGC must evaluate the overall effect on the plans. However, the information presently available

to this office (which appears to be complete) does not indicate a need or basis for terminating the plans. 

We hope this is of assistance. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  News & Policy 
-  Statements 
-  PBGC Statement On Department of Labor’s Statement of Enfo... 

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.

# PBGC Statement on Department of Labor’s Statement of Enforcement Policy Regarding Return of Excess Special Financial Assistance Payments

March 15, 2024

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) strongly supports the repayment of any Special Financial Assistance (SFA) that was paid based on inaccurate census data. PBGC also supports the Department of Labor’s (DOL) position that such repayments would not violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or Internal Revenue Code provisions noted in DOL’s Statement of Enforcement Policy. PBGC has a full census data audit underway for SFA plans that were previously approved, and is committed to facilitating the return of excess payments.

**About PBGC**

PBGC protects the retirement security of over 31 million American workers, retirees, and beneficiaries in both single-employer and multiemployer private sector pension plans. The agency’s two insurance programs are legally separate and operationally and financially independent. PBGC is directly responsible for the benefits of nearly 1.4 million participants and beneficiaries in failed single-employer pension plans. The Single-Employer Program is financed by insurance premiums, investment income, and assets and recoveries from failed single-employer plans. The Multiemployer Program is financed by insurance premiums and investment income. Special financial assistance for financially troubled multiemployer plans is financed by general taxpayer monies.
Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Graham Packaging Holdings
Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 27, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John E.
Hamilton, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 Graham
     Packaging Holdings Company.

Date: August 10, 2004


                                By: /s/ John E. Hamilton
                                   -----------------------------------
                                   John E. Hamilton
                                   Chief Financial Officer



























































                                       1
<PAGE>
§ 39.403 What certification is required? ( a ) Each school must maintain an individual file on each student receiving basic educational and supplemental services. The file must contain written documentation of the following: ( 1 ) Each student's eligibility and attendance records;
( 2 ) A complete listing of all supplemental services provided, including all necessary documentation required by statute and regulations (*e.g.*, a current and complete Individual Education Plan for each student receiving supplemental services); and
( 3 ) Documentation of expenditures and program delivery for student transportation to and from school provided by commercial carriers.
( b ) The School must maintain the following files in a central location: ( 1 ) The school's ADM and supplemental program counts and residential count;
( 2 ) Transportation related documentation, such as school bus mileage, bus routes;
( 3 ) A list of students transported to and from school;
( 4 ) An electronic student count program or database;
( 5 ) Class record books;
( 6 ) Supplemental program class record books;
( 7 ) For residential programs, residential student attendance documentation;
( 8 ) Evidence of teacher certification; and
( 9 ) The school's accreditation certificate.
( c ) The Director must maintain a record of required certifications for ELOs, specialists, and school superintendents in a central location.
### SUBCHAPTER IV—REGULATION OF THE BANKING BUSINESS; POWERS AND DUTIES OF NATIONAL BANKS
# C_2006212EN.01002701.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/27

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006 — Hoek Loos NV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-304/02) (1)

1

(Competition - Cartels - Dutch market for industrial and medical gases - Price fixing - Calculation of fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment)

(2006/C 212/47)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Hoek Loos NV (Schiedam, Netherlands) (represented by: J.J. Feenstra and B.F. Van Harinxma thoe Slooten, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Article 3 of Commission Decision 2003/207/EC final of 24 July 2002 relating to a procedure pursuant to Article 81 EC (case COMP/E-3/36.700 — Industrial and medical gases) (OJ 2003, L 84, p. 1) and, alternatively, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 7.12.2002.

1

---
### §1188. Status conference

(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), not later than 60 days after the entry of the order for relief under this chapter, the court shall hold a status conference to further the expeditious and economical resolution of a case under this subchapter.

(b) Exception.—The court may extend the period of time for holding a status conference under subsection (a) if the need for an extension is attributable to circumstances for which the debtor should not justly be held accountable.

(c) Report.—Not later than 14 days before the date of the status conference under subsection (a), the debtor shall file with the court and serve on the trustee and all parties in interest a report that details the efforts the debtor has undertaken and will undertake to attain a consensual plan of reorganization.

(Added Pub. L. 116–54, §2(a), Aug. 23, 2019, 133 Stat. 1081.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Aug. 23, 2019, see section 5 of Pub. L. 116–54, set out as an Effective Date of 2019 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.
# C_2006294EN.01004101.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/41

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Akzo Nobel NV v Commission

(Case T-330/01) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Sodium gluconate - Article 81 EC - Fine - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Guidelines for the calculation of the amount of fines - Principle of proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

(2006/C 294/86)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Akzo Nobel NV (Arnhem, Netherlands) (represented by: initially by M. van Empel and C. Swaak, and subsequently by C. Swaak, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan, A. Bouquet and W. Wils, Agents, assisted by H.van der Woude, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of Articles 3 and 4 of Decision C(2001) 2931 of 2 October 2001 concerning a procedure under Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/E 1/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate), in so far as it pertains to the applicant or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Akzo Nobel NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Akzo Nobel NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 16.3.2002.

1

---