alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007020EN.01002002.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/20

---

Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-349/06)

(2007/C 20/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, C. Schulze-Bahr and C. von Donat, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2006) 4194 final of 25 September 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the ERDF granted by Commission Decision No C(95) 1736 of 27 July 1995 for the Operational Programme RESIDER North Rhine-Westphalia (ERDF No 49.02.10.036/ARINCO No 94.DE.16.051); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2006) 4194 final of 25 September 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the ERDF granted by Commission Decision No C(95) 1736 of 27 July 1995 for the Operational Programme RESIDER North Rhine-Westphalia (ERDF No 49.02.10.036/ARINCO No 94.DE.16.051);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision the Commission reduced the amount of financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the RESIDER-North Rhine-Westphalia Programme.

In support of its action the applicant claims infringement of Article 24 of Regulation 4253/88 (1) since the requirements for a reduction are not met. In that context it claims, in particular, that the divergences from the indicative financing plan do not constitute a significant change to the programme.

1

Even if there were a significant change to the programme, the applicant submits that the Commission gave prior consent in the form of its 'Guidelines for the financial closure of operational measures (1994 to 1999) of the Structural Funds' (SEC (1999) 1316).

Assuming that the requirements for a reduction are met, the applicant claims that the defendant did not make use of its discretionary power in relation to the specific programme. In the applicant's view the Commission should have weighed up whether a reduction of the ERDF assistance was proportionate.

Finally, the contested decision infringes the principle of sound administration in that it required the applicant to bring a new action against the decision, against which an action was already pending.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 1).

1

---
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-26 

February 10, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

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

4041(b) Termination by Plan Administrator. Notice of Sufficiency

4044(a) Allocation of Assets. Requirement of Following Statutory Allocation Provisions

4082(b). Effective Date; Special Rules. Applicability of Title IV to Plan Terminations Occurring Between July 1, 1974

and September 2, 1974 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your request for the position of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation on the appropriate

manner of holding or allocating trust funds pending a determination of asset sufficiency under Section 4041(b) of the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act"). We regret that, due to the press of other business, we

have not been able to respond until now. 

Section 4041(a) of the Act requires that "for a period of 90 days after the proposed termination date the plan

administrator shall pay no amount pursuant to the termination procedure of the plan unless, before the expiration of such

period, he receives a notice of sufficiency under Subsection (b). Upon receiving such a notice, the plan administrator

may proceed with the termination the plan in a manner consistent with this [*2] subtitle." You have filed for coverage

pursuant to Section 4082(b) of the Act, which provides for the guarantee of benefits for plans terminating after June 30,

1974 and before the date of enactment of the Act. Pending receipt of a notice of asset sufficiency by the Corporation,

distributions of monthly benefits to retirees in pay status prior to termination of the plan is permissible. No distribution

pursuant to the termination procedure of the plan, however, may be made. The allocation of assets of plans qualifying

for pre-enactment coverage need not be in accordance with the priority categories prescribed by Section 4044 of the Act.

We hope this is of assistance. 

Steven E. Schanes 

Acting Executive Director
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

80-4 

April 2, 1980 

REFERENCE: 

4006 Premium Rates

4007 Payment of Premiums

29 CFR 2602 Payment of Premiums 

OPINION: 

 Your request for a premium refund for the * * * Employee Retirement Plan (the "Plan") has been referred to this

office for response. 

As I understand the facts, the Plan is a multiple employer plan covering the employees of a number of agencies.

There were 1248 Plan participants as of October 31, 1978, the last day of the 1977-78 Plan year. This was the participant

count on which the premium paid the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") for the 1978-79 Plan year was

based. Effective November 1, 1978, 767 employees terminated participation in the Plan when four participating agencies

withdrew from the Plan and adopted their own separate plans. Also, effective November 1, 1978, 78 new employees

became participants, for a total loss to the Plan on that date of 689 participants. You have requested a refund of the

premiums paid for the 1978-79 Plan year for these 689 participants. 

The PBGC regulation on Payment of Premiums, 29 C.F.R. § 2602 (1979), bases the premium for the current plan

year on the number of plan participants on the last day of the prior plan year. [*2] This "snapshot approach" was

intended to simplify the computation and reporting of annual premiums for the benefit of plan administrators and

employer-sponsors. 

The regulation was promulgated pursuant to Section 4006(a)(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

of 1974, which gives the PBGC latitude in selecting the participant count date for a premium rate based on "the number

of participants in a plan." The regulation became final only after written comments by the public were considered. Those

comments strongly endorsed the rule that based premiums on the participant count on the last day of the prior plan year.

Since the premium in question was correctly computed under the PBGC regulations, the requested refund is

precluded. The "snapshot approach" of the regulations would, similarly, preclude the inclusion of the 78 new employees

in the count of participants for the 1978-79 Plan year. 

This determination that the Plan is not entitled to a refund of a portion of the premiums paid for the 1978-79 Plan

year is subject to reconsideration under our regulation on Administrative Review, a copy of which is enclosed. Also

enclosed is a notice explaining the administrative [*3] reconsideration process. 

Lawrence Maslan 

Director 

Office of Financial Operations
§ 152.25 Negotiated sales, gifts and exchanges of trust or restricted lands. Those sales, exchanges, and gifts of trust or restricted lands specifically described in the following paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section may be negotiated; all other sales shall be by advertised sale, except as may be otherwise provided by the Secretary. ( a ) *Consideration not less than the appraised fair market value.* Indian owners may, with the approval of the Secretary, negotiate a sale of and sell trust or restricted land for not less than the appraised fair market value: ( 1 ) When the sale is to the United States, States, or political subdivisions thereof, or such other sale as may be for a public purpose;
( 2 ) When the sale is to the tribe or another Indian; or
( 3 ) When the Secretary determines it is impractical to advertise.
( b ) *Exchange at appraised fair market value.* With the approval of the Secretary, Indian owners may exchange trust or restricted land, or a combination of such land and other things of value, for other lands or combinations of land and other things of value. The value of the consideration received by the Indian in the exchange must be at least substantially equal to the appraised fair market value of the consideration given by him.
( c ) *Sale to coowners.* With the approval of the Secretary, Indian owners may negotiate a sale of and sell trust or restricted land to a coowner of that land. The consideration may be less than the appraised fair market value, if in the opinion of the Secretary there is a special relationship between the coowners or special circumstances exist.
( d ) *Gifts and conveyances for less than the appraised fair market value.* With the approval of the Secretary, Indian owners may convey trust or restricted land, for less than the appraised fair market value or for no consideration when the prospective grantee is the owner's spouse, brother, sister, lineal ancestor of Indian blood or lineal descendant, or when some other special relationship exists between the grantor and grantee or special circumstances exist that in the opinion of the Secretary warrant the approval of the conveyance.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY
, Appellant s ,

v.

ROBIN COHEN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Nathan Cohen, deceased

, Appellee

.

No s . 4D 10

- 3534 and 4D10

- 4065

[February 17, 2016 ]

ON REMAND FROM

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

Consolidated a ppeal s and cross

- appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Jeffrey E. Streitfeld , Judge;

L.T. Case No s

. 07

- 11515 (19) and 08

- 8 0000 (19)

.

Gordon James III and Eric L. Lundt of Sedgwick LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Stephanie E. Parker of Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, for appellant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; Andrew S. Brenner of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Miami, and Gary L. Sasso of Car lton Fields, Tampa, for appellant Philip

Morris USA Inc.

Robert S. Glazier of Law Office of Robert S. Glazier, Miami; Law Office of Gary Paige, P.A., Coral Gables; Troop & Amen, P.A., Hollywood; and Alvarez Law Firm, Coral Gables, for appellee.

D AMOORGIA N , J.

Upon consideration of the Supreme Court of Florida's January 29, 2016 order, which summarily quashes the decision of this court filed September 12, 2012, this case is remanded to the lower tribunal with directions to reinstate the jury verdict and for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court's order.

G ROSS and L EVINE
, JJ., concur.

* * *
§ 700.709 Grazing privileges. ( a ) A list of permittees eligible to receive grazing permits is kept at the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation in Flagstaff, Arizona. This list is composed of individuals eligible for New Lands grazing permits who: ( 1 ) Have a current HPL grazing permit, or have had an HPL permit issued since 1980, or are current HPL residents and can show documentation of a past grazing permit issued in their name for grazing on an area now on the HPL, and
( 2 ) Who have not received relocation benefits under Pub. L. 93-531, and who relocate from the HPL on to a New Lands range unit. Individuals on this list will receive a commitment that a permit will be issued to them.
( b ) If such persons cannot relocate immediately because their chosen relocation site is not ready for occupancy, the Office will issue a commitment to them that a grazing permit will be granted upon their relocation.
( c ) If such persons are notified by the Office that their relocation site is ready for occupancy and they fail or refuse to make timely arrangements to relocate when requested by the Office to do so, the commitment may be withdrawn.
( d ) Persons on this list must file an application for a New Lands Grazing Permit. The Commissioner will determine when the application period will close and will publish notice of that date. After the close of the period for application, the Commissioner, in his sole discretion, may issue permits to individuals if it is determined that to do so will facilitate relocation.
( e ) Initial determinations on eligibility for grazing permits will be made by the Range Supervisor.
[56 FR 13397, Apr. 2, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 24363, June 9, 1992]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-15-2000
<CASH>                                          16,598
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  102,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,922)
<INVENTORY>                                    766,998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               901,481
<PP&E>                                         575,851
<DEPRECIATION>                               (179,520)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,350,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          556,570
<BONDS>                                        279,535
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           283
<OTHER-SE>                                     146,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,350,312
<SALES>                                      1,235,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,235,232
<CGS>                                          759,724
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  759,724
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               424,075
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,601
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,364
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,939
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,425
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,425
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 33.2



MANAGEMENT’S ASSERTION
OF COMPLIANCE



Management of the Trust & Securities Services department of
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (collectively the “Company”) is responsible
for assessing the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission
to determine which criteria are applicable to the Company in respect of the servicing platform described below. Management has
determined that the servicing criteria are applicable in regard to the servicing platform for the period as follows:



Platform:  The Honda Auto Receivables 2010-3 Owner
Trust asset-backed securities transaction, the Honda Auto Receivables 2012-2 Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction and
the Honda Auto Receivables 2013-3 Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction (the “Platform”).



Applicable Servicing Criteria:  All servicing criteria
set forth in Item 1122(d), except for the following criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii)-1122(d)(2)(vii),
1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities the Company
performs with respect to the Platform (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”). With respect to the Platform, servicing
criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances.



Period:  Year ended March 31, 2014 (the “Period”).



With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company’s
management provides the following assertion of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:



1.   The Company’s management is responsible for
assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.



2.   The Company’s management has assessed the Company’s
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period. In performing this assessment, management used the
criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.



3.   Based on such assessment as of and for the Period,
the Company has complied, in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report with respect to management’s assertion of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria
as of and for the Period.













| | DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY
| | ------------------------------------
| |                                     
| | By:                                 
| |                                     
| |                                     
| |                                     
| | DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS
| |                                     
| | By:                                 
| |                                     
| |                                     



Dated: May 30, 2014
#### § 15.51 Program accessibility; new construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the Department shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with a disability. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as established in 41 CFR 101-19.600 through 101-19.607 apply to buildings covered by this section.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VOS International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Allan J. Ligi, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 result of operations of the Company.
|   

|\s\
|---

|Allan J. Ligi
|-------------

|Allan J. LigiPresident and Principal Executive Officer
|------------------------------------------------------

|August 21, 2006
|---------------

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

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

In connection with this amendment to the Annual Report of RLJ Entertainment, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Miguel Penella, Chief Executive Officer and Mark Nunis, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | (1) | Based on my knowledge, the Report 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 |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

 

| Date: April 29. 2016 |   | /s/ MIGUEL PENELLA       |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                 |   | Miguel Penella           |
|                 |   | Chief Executive Officer  |
|                 |   |                     |
| Date: April 29, 2016 |   | /s/ MARK NUNIS           |
|                 |   | Mark Nunis               |
|                 |   | Chief Accounting Officer |
### §1423. Federal Home Loan Bank districts; number and boundaries; establishment of Federal Home Loan Banks; names

#### (a) In general

As soon as practicable the Director shall divide the continental United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii into not less than eight nor more than twelve districts. Such districts shall be apportioned with due regard to the convenience and customary course of business of the institutions eligible to and likely to subscribe for stock of a Federal Home Loan Bank to be formed under this chapter, but no such district shall contain a fractional part of any State. The districts thus created may be readjusted and new districts may from time to time be created by the Director, not to exceed twelve in all. Such districts shall be known as Federal Home Loan Bank districts and may be designated by number. As soon as practicable the Director shall establish, in each district, a Federal Home Loan Bank at such city as may be designated by the Director. Its title shall include the name of the city at which it is established.

#### (b) Authority to reduce districts

Notwithstanding subsection (a), the number of districts may be reduced to a number less than 8—

(1) pursuant to a voluntary merger between Banks, as approved pursuant to section 1446(b) of this title; or

(2) pursuant to a decision by the Director to liquidate a Bank pursuant to section 4617 of this title.

(July 22, 1932, ch. 522, §3, 47 Stat. 726; July 14, 1952, ch. 723, §10(c), 66 Stat. 604; Pub. L. 101–73, title VII, §701(b)(1), (3)(A), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 412; Pub. L. 110–289, div. A, title II, §§1204(8), 1210, July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2786, 2790.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–289, §1210, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

Pub. L. 110–289, §1204(8), substituted "the Director" for "the Board" wherever appearing.

1989—Pub. L. 101–73 substituted "Board" for "board" wherever appearing.

1952—Act July 14, 1952, inserted "Guam," after "Virgin Islands,".

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Admission of Alaska and Hawaii to Statehood

Alaska was admitted into the Union on Jan. 3, 1959, on issuance of Proc. No. 3269, Jan. 3, 1959, 24 F.R. 81, 73 Stat. c16, and Hawaii was admitted into the Union on Aug. 21, 1959, on issuance of Proc. No. 3309, Aug. 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6868, 73 Stat. c74. For Alaska Statehood Law, see Pub. L. 85–508, July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 339, set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. For Hawaii Statehood Law, see Pub. L. 86–3, Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 4, set out as a note preceding section 491 of Title 48.