alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007027EN.01001901.xml

| 7.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/19

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 February 2007

(2007/C 27/05)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2955 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 155,56 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4538 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,65780 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1365 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6100 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 88,45 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1120 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5791 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,125 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 252,48 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6964 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8643 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,3678 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 34,527 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8115 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6674 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5322 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1163 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8998 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9858 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 208,64 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3153 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0473 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3880 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 729,46 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5291 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,832 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,3600 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,330 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2955

JPY

Japanese yen

155,56

DKK

Danish krone

7,4538

GBP

Pound sterling

0,65780

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1365

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6100

ISK

Iceland króna

88,45

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1120

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5791

CZK

Czech koruna

28,125

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

252,48

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6964

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8643

RON

Romanian leu

3,3678

SKK

Slovak koruna

34,527

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8115

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6674

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5322

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1163

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8998

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9858

KRW

South Korean won

1 208,64

ZAR

South African rand

9,3153

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0473

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3880

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 729,46

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5291

PHP

Philippine peso

62,832

RUB

Russian rouble

34,3600

THB

Thai baht

44,330

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
-  Home 
-  171 

# In This Section

-  PHMSA Rules 
-  Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits 
-  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
-  Pipeline Special Permits & State Waivers 

# 171.1

## Section §171.1: Applicability of Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to persons and functions

Below are the available interpretations and guidance for the given section. To return to the list of parts, use the Parts link above. If you do not see any guidance or interpretation information below, that means there is none available for the given part/section. Return to the search page to browse additional regulations sections.

PHMSA has published several Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) documents on regulatory topics. Please review our FAQ documents below:

https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/about-phmsa/phmsa-faqs.

Additionally PHMSA has Hazardous Materials FAQs based on letters of interpretation on the following topics:
                              - Applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations
                              - Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting
                              - Hazardous Materials Training Requirements

This section of the website provides the ability to find regulations information including regulations parts, content of sections, and interpretations for regulations sections. Below is a list of parts, identified by the part number and subject. To browse sections by part, click on the subject link below. You will be taken to the eCFR website to view sections for a part.

A written regulatory interpretation, response to a question, or an opinion concerning a pipeline safety issue may be obtained by submitting a written request to the Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP–30), PHMSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001 or at the email address: pipeline_interp_submittal@dot.gov. In addition to email address, the requestor must include his or her return address and should also include a daytime telephone number. Requests should be submitted at least 120 days before the time the requestor needs a response.

Note: electronic submission is provided as alternative to the 49 CFR Part 190.11(b) mail-in requirement.

The regulations text of the section can be found on the eCFR website. To view the regulations text, use the link below. For assistance, please send an email to PHMSA.Webmaster@dot.gov.

View section 171.1 on the ECFR website

## Interpretation Responses
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7148

ROBERT LOUIS GARRETT, JR., a/k/a Chubby, a/k/a Chubb, a/k/a Tru, a/k/a Kweli, a/k/a Justice , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CHAD BINKLEY; UNKNOWN OFFICERS, From 9 May 2015 Attack , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge ; Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate Judge . ( 0:18

- cv
- 01416

- CMC

- PJG )

Submitted : October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s order and dismissing Garrett’s motions to compel and for sanctions and the magistrate judge’s order denying without prejudice Garrett’s motion to compel discovery. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5 4(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The
order s Garrett seeks to appeal are neither final order s nor appealable interlocutory or
collateral order s . Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We disp ense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# C_2006294EN.01000902.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Fidium Finanz AG v Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

(Case C-452/04) (1)

1

(Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Companies established in non-member countries - Activity entirely or principally directed towards the territory of a Member State - Grant of credit on a commercial basis - Requirement of prior authorisation in the Member State in which the service is provided)

(2006/C 294/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fidium Finanz AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Interpretation of Arts 49, 56 and 58 EC — Undertaking established in a non-member country whose activities, consisting in the granting of loans, are directed entirely or principally at the territory of a Member State — Requirement of prior authorisation in the Member State in which the service is provided

Operative part of the judgment

National rules whereby a Member State makes the granting of credit on a commercial basis, on national territory, by a company established in a non-member country subject to prior authorisation, and which provide that such authorisation must be refused, in particular, if that company does not have its central administration or a branch in that territory, affect primarily the exercise of the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 49 EC et seq. A company established in a non-member country cannot rely on those provisions.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 08.01.2005.

1

---
#### § 531.2 Prohibited provisions.

A management contract shall not transfer or, in any other manner, convey any interest in land or other real property, unless specific statutory authority exists and unless clearly specified in writing in the contract.
### §§1148a–4 to 1148d. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title V, §5411(60)–(63), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4686

Section 1148a–4, act July 14, 1953, ch. 192, §2, 67 Stat. 150, related to security for economic disaster and special livestock loans.

Section 1148b, act Aug. 19, 1937, ch. 704, §32, 50 Stat. 716; June 30, 1947, ch. 166, title II, §206(s), 61 Stat. 209, set out additional powers of regional agricultural credit corporations.

Section 1148c, act Aug. 19, 1937, ch. 704, §33, 50 Stat. 717; June 30, 1947, ch. 166, title II, §206(s), 61 Stat. 209, related to consolidation or merger of two or more regional agricultural credit corporations.

Section 1148d, act Aug. 19, 1937, ch. 704, §34, 50 Stat. 717, declared the rights and powers of regional agricultural credit corporations, the Farm Credit Administration, or the Governor of the Administration to be unaffected by sections 1148b and 1148c of this title.
§ 17.225 Educational institutions eligible to submit transition plans. ( a ) *Application.* This section applies to each educational institution to which §§ 17.300 through 17.310 apply that: ( 1 ) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1972; or
( 2 ) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1965, but thereafter admitted, as regular students, students of the sex not admitted prior to June 23, 1965.
( b ) Provision for transition plans. An educational institution to which this section applies shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in admission or recruitment in violation of §§ 17.300 through 17.310.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
chief executive officer of Iron Age Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

         1)   the Company's 10-Q 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 Company's 10-Q fairly presents,
              in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company.


                                /s/ William J. Mills
                                --------------------
                                William J. Mills
                                Chief Executive Officer, President and Director


Dated: December 10, 2002
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Deutsche Mortgage & AssetReceiving Corporation

60 WALL ST

NEW YORK, New York 10005-2836

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for COMM 2012-CCRE1 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of May 1, 2012 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned,a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as CertificateAdministrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of andfor the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreementhas been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Successor in Interest to Tappan Zee National Bank of Nyack, Respondent-Appellant, v Marie Reibestein, Appellant-Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 259]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), entered September 1, 2005, which granted petitioner tenant’s application to stay arbitration of an appraisal of the leased property demanded by respondent landlord, denied landlord’s “cross petition” seeking damages for breach of the parties’ lease and directed arbitration thereof, and denied landlord’s motion for pre-arbitration discovery, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitrability of the third appraiser’s valuation of the leased premises, which the lease provides is binding on the parties, is not an arbitrable issue. Previous judicial findings arguably to the contrary made in connection with prior lease renewals are not res judicata, since such findings were made before the parties executed the lease extension and modification agreement that changed the valuation procedure *(see Kappas v T.W. Kutter, Inc.,*192 AD2d 402, 402-403 [1993]). While both the pre and postmodification leases provided that the third appraiser’s valuation is binding, the former, but not the latter, also provided for “excluding [from the property’s value] such improvement costs and building costs as are paid for by the Tenant.” It was landlord’s position in the prior proceedings that since the appraisal procedure in the premodification lease made the amount of such exclusion entirely dependent on information supplied by *309tenant, “[t]he only option the landlord has to contest claimed tenant improvements is in the [arbitration] procedure.” In the postmodification lease, the exclusion for tenant improvement costs was dropped in favor of a calculation of rent based on a reduced fixed percentage of the appraised value (6% of value instead of 8% of value minus tenant improvements). Thus the appraisal provision in the modified lease leaves no conceivable basis for demanding arbitration *(see Matter of American Silk Mills Corp. [Meinhard-Commercial Corp.],*35 AD2d 197, 200-201 [1970]). The application court also correctly determined that landlord’s breach of contract claim is arbitrable and that landlord’s mere interposition of such a claim, denominated a “cross petition,” in her opposition papers to tenant’s petition to stay arbitration did not constitute a waiver of her right to arbitrate (cf. *Sherrill v Grayco Bldrs.,*64 NY2d 261, 272, 273-274 [1985]). We also agree that landlord failed to make a sufficient showing of necessity to warrant court-ordered discovery *(see International Components Corp. v Klaiber,*54 AD2d 550, 551 [1976]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.
19

30

31

0

32

21

~28

33 |

02

|
{
\
|
I
1
|

Ironwood Forest National Monument
SALI IS IEEE ES EDEN IE EEE Ee

04

|

I,
22 |

|

|

34

23

26

|
i}
27
National Monument
\ op
ro
oe | a
ait alleen
v1 &
| 2
|
I
|
} r
1
|
|
i

24

25

36

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Ironwood Forest National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement
March 2007

TRAVEL ROUTE INVENTORY

Township 12 South
Range 8 East

Gila and Salt River Principal Meridian, Arizona

National Monument Boundary

=

Public Lands Administered by the
Bureau of Land Management

State Trust Lands

Military Reservation

———— _ Monument Travel Route Inventory

Universal Transverse Mercator
Zone 12, Units Meters

Clark 1866 Spheriod

NAD27 Datum

A

1 i} 1 Miles

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
for the use of this map for purposes not intended by the BLM, or
to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information
shown. Spatial information may not meet National map Accuracy
Standards. This information may be updated without notification.

(S23) United States Department of the Interior
$5 Bureau of Land Management
YSZ’ Tucson Field Orfce

Arizona

S
#### UMG Recordings, Inc., Appellant, v FUBU Records, LLC, et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 83]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered June 26, 2006, which, upon reargument, adhered to *294a prior order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 29, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as against the GTFM defendants pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the December 29, 2005 order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the subsequent order.

In this action for breach of a joint venture agreement to produce music videos, the motion court applied the correct standard of review in determining that plaintiff’s “piercing the corporate veil” allegations of domination and control were conclusory *(see Leder v Spiegel,*31 AD3d 266 [2006]) and unaccompanied by allegations of consequent wrongs *(see TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp.,*92 NY2d 335, 339-340 [1998]; *Sheridan Broadcasting Corp. v Small,*19 AD3d 331, 332 [2005]), and were thus insufficient to state a claim against defendants GTFM, Inc. and GTFM, LLC for breach of the agreement signed only by plaintiff and FUBU Records. In interpreting the unambiguous agreement *(see Hirsch v Food Resources, Inc.,*24 AD3d 293, 295 [2005]), the motion court properly found that it contradicted the allegations of the complaint *(see Wilhelmina Models, Inc. v Fleisher,*19 AD3d 267, 269 [2005]; *HSA Residential Mtge. Servs. of Tex., Inc. v Stewart Tit. Guar. Co.,*7 AD3d 426, 427 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 607 [2004]) and that plaintiff’s interpretation would have rendered terms therein meaningless *(see 150 Broadway N.Y. Assoc., L.P. v Bodner,*14 AD3d 1, 6 [2004]; *Excel Graphics Tech, v CFG/AGSCB 75 Ninth Ave.,*1 AD3d 65, 69 [2003], *lv dismissed*2 NY3d 794 [2004]). The court did not resort to extrinsic evidence or prematurely determine issues of fact. Under the circumstances, defendant FUBU Records, LLC was bound by the agreement despite the use of its colloquial name without the entity designation *(see R.P.I. Servs., Inc. v Eisenberg, 29*AD3d 459 [2006]; *Spanierman Gallery, PSP v Love,*320 F Supp 2d 108,111-112 [SD NY 2004]).

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Sullivan, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-33 

December 22, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

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

OPINION: 

 This letter will confirm our telephone response to your letter of August 23, 1975, wherein you ask three questions:

(1) whether the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (hereinafter the "PBGC") will guarnatee "basic" benefits promised

in the * * * Employees' Retirement Plan (hereinafter the "Plan") in the event the Plan terminates without sufficient assets

to pay those benefits; (2) whether the death benefits provided by Sections 11.1 and 11.2 of the Plan would be guaranteed

by the PBGC; and, (3) whether participants in the Plan may receive benefits thereunder prior to reaching the age of 65

should the PBGC terminate the Plan. 

Section 4021(a) of the Employe e Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (hereinafter the "Act") provides

mandatory coverage of pension plans which are tax qualified and not excluded under § 4021(b) of the Act. Based on

our examination of the Plan document submitted, we believe that the Plan is not excluded under § 4021(b) of the Act

and would therefore be covered for insurance purposes, provided it "is, or has been determined . . . to be, a plan

described in . . ." § 401(a) (2) of the Internal Revenue [*2] Code. Act § 4021(a) (2). See Id., § 4022. 

In answer to your question about coverage of death benefits, whether the PBGC will guarantee death benefits

provided in Sections 11.1 and 11.2 of the Plan depends upon the circumstances. An annuity payable pursuant to Sections

11.1 and 11.2 of the Plan to the surviving beneficiary of a participant who died before the Plan terminates will be

guaranteed by the PBGC up to the statutory maximum. See Act § 4022(b) (3), Guaranteed Benefits Regulation 29 CFR

§ § 2605.2, 2605.4(a) (1), (a) (2) (i) and (b). Death benefits for surviving beneficiaries of a participant who died before

retirement but after the Plan terminates would not be guarnateed by the PBGC. Id., § § 2605.5(a) and 2605.6(a).

However, where a retired participant dies after Plan termination, the death benefit provided in the Plan would be

guaranteed. See Id., § § 2605.2, 2605.3 and 2605.6. 

With respect to your last question on early retirement, the PBGC will guarantee the payment of early retirement

benefits to participants pursuant to the Plan provided that on the date of Plan termination, each participant has satisfied

all Plan requirements except the submission [*3] of an application, actual retirement, or the completion of a required

waiting period. Id., § 2605.6(a). The amount of benefit that is guaranteed by the PBGC under early retirement

provisions cannot exceed the amount which is actuarially equivalent to a straight life annuity based on credited service

on the date of Plan termination payable at the normal retirement age of 65. Id., § 2605.4(a) (1). 

 We hope that we have answered your inquiry. Should you have further questions, please feel free to write us. 

George B. Driesen 

Deputy General Counsel