alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007095EN.01001803.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/18

---

Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-61/07)

(2007/C 95/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to send the report containing the information required under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (1), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to send the report containing the information required under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (1), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;

1

| — | order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to communicate to the Commission by 15 March 2005 the report containing the information required under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004 on, firstly, national policies and measures which limit and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by sources or enhance removals by sinks, presented on a sectoral basis for each greenhouse gas and, secondly, national projections of greenhouse gas emissions by sources and their removal by sinks as a minimum for the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020, organised by gas and by sector.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1.

1

---
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 629

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the basic allowance

for housing for members of the Armed Forces stationed in San Diego

and Orange Counties, California, should be increased to compensate

for increased energy costs there.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 12, 2000

Mr. BILBRAY (for himself, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. PACKARD, and Mr.

CUNNINGHAM) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Armed Services

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

the basic allowance for housing for members of the

Armed Forces stationed in San Diego and Orange Counties, California, should be increased to compensate for

increased energy costs there.

Whereas the economy of San Diego and Orange Counties,

California, is being drained of $75,000,000 to

$100,000,000 each month as a result of unreasonable

electric power costs;

Whereas electricity consumers in San Diego and Orange

Counties are expected to be $500,000,000 poorer by the

end of October 2000 as a result of electricity price spikes;
2

•HRES 629 IH

Whereas electricity prices increased by 9,000 percent in a

matter of hours during periods of peak demand in San

Diego and Orange Counties this summer;

Whereas Department of Defense data for the year 2000 did

not show San Diego or Orange County to be in a high

cost area and the basic allowance for housing under section 403 of title 37, United States Code, was not increased for members of the Armed Forces stationed

there; and

Whereas the current basic allowance for housing does not reflect the current high electricity costs which must be

borne by these men and women: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the basic allowance for housing under

3 section 403 of title 37, United States Code, for members

4 of the Armed Forces stationed in San Diego and Orange

5 Counties, California, should be adjusted promptly to pro6 vide immediate relief from the electricity crisis.

Æ
### §2201. Notice of action on application

#### (a) Loan applications

Each qualified lender to which a person has applied for a loan shall provide the person with prompt written notice of—

(1) the action on the application;

(2) if the loan applied for is reduced or denied, the reasons for such action; and

(3) the applicant's right to review under section 2202 of this title.

#### (b) Distressed loans

Each qualified lender that has a distressed loan outstanding that is subject to restructuring requirements under this chapter shall provide, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Farm Credit Administration, the borrower with prompt written notice of—

(1) any action taken with respect to restructuring the loan under section 2202a of this title;

(2) if restructuring is denied, the reasons for such action; and

(3) the borrower's right to review under section 2202 of this title.

(Pub. L. 92–181, title IV, §4.13B, formerly §4.13, Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 613, renumbered §4.13B and amended Pub. L. 99–205, title III, §§301(a), 302, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1707, 1708; Pub. L. 100–233, title I, §105, Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1579.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–233 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "Every applicant for a loan from an institution of the System shall be entitled to prompt written notice of action on his application, and, if the loan applied for is reduced or denied, the reason for such action, and of the applicant's right to review under section 2202 of this title."

1985—Pub. L. 99–205, §302, provided for a "written" notice and for the applicant's right to review under section 2202 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of 1985 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–205 effective thirty days after Dec. 23, 1985, see section 401 of Pub. L. 99–205, set out as a note under section 2001 of this title.
# C_2007056EN.01001701.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/17

---

Appeal brought on 18 December 2006 by Armacell Enterprise GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2006 in Case T-172/05: Armacell Enterprise GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-514/06 P)

(2007/C 56/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Armacell Enterprise GmbH (represented by: O. Spuhler, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance dated 10 October 2006 in case T-172/05; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance dated 10 October 2006 in case T-172/05;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice;

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of the Harmonization in the Internal Market dated 23 February 2005 in case R 552/2004-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of the Harmonization in the Internal Market dated 23 February 2005 in case R 552/2004-1;

| — | order the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance as well as the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance as well as the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested decision of the Court of First Instance is based on a misinterpretation of the statutory requirement of trade mark similarity according to article 8(1)(b) of Council regulation (EC) no 40/94 (1) of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (hereinafter ‘CMTR’). The applicant also submits that the failure of the Court of First Instance to consider the question of trade mark similarity from the point of view of the English-speaking public constitutes a violation of an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of article 63(2) CTMR.

o

1

---

(1)  OJ L 11, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2007021EN.01000101.xml

| 30.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 21/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4417 — Telecom Italia/AOL German Access Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 21/01)

On 28 November 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4417. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4417. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

78-30 

December 15, 1978 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4007 Payment of Premiums 

OPINION: 

 You have asked whether a Puerto Rican pension plan which is not qualified under Section 401(a) of the Internal

Revenue Code may now request a refund of all premiums paid to PBGC. A plan may be qualified under the Internal

Revenue Code even though the plan has not received an Internal Revenue Service determination letter. Further, a plan

without a determination letter may meet the qualification in practice test of Section 4021(a)(1) of ERISA. Accordingly,

in order to determine whether a Puerto Rican plan without an IRS determination letter meets the tax qualification

requirement of Section 4021(a) of ERISA it will be necessary for us to examine the plan provisions. Plans which seek

a refund of PBGC premiums should initially submit to us copies of the plan document as of September 2, 1974 and and

subsequent amendments. After PBGC has made a determination as to a plan coverage status, we will then be in a

position to inform you with respect to the questions that you have raised concerning reportable events and employer

liability. 

You have also asked whether PBGC will make interests payments on premium refunds. There is no provision in

Title IV of ERISA [*2] for the payment of interest on premium refunds. 

With respect to your question as to whether a non-covered defined benefit plan is subject to the asset allocation

provisions of Title IV on termination, we refer you to Section 403(d)(1) of ERISA, which provides that the assets of a

pension plan to which Section 4021 does not apply and to which Part 4 of Subtitle B of Title I applies are to be allocated

in accordance with the provisions of Title IV. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### §1440a. Sharing of information among Federal Home Loan Banks

#### (a) Information on financial condition

In order to enable each Federal Home Loan Bank to evaluate the financial condition of one or more of the other Federal Home Loan Banks individually and the Federal Home Loan Bank System (including any risks associated with the issuance or repayment of consolidated Federal Home Loan Bank bonds and debentures or other borrowings and the joint and several liabilities of the Banks incurred due to such borrowings), as well as to comply with any of its obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), the Director shall make available to the Banks such reports, records, or other information as may be available, relating to the condition of any Federal Home Loan Bank.

#### (b) Sharing of information

#### (1) In general

The Director shall promulgate regulations to facilitate the sharing of information made available under subsection (a) directly among the Federal Home Loan Banks.

#### (2) Limitation

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a Federal Home Loan Bank responding to a request from another Bank or from the Director for information pursuant to this section may request that the Director determine that such information is proprietary and that the public interest requires that such information not be shared.

#### (c) Limitation

Nothing in this section shall affect the obligations of any Federal Home Loan Bank under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) or the regulations issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder.

#### (d) No waiver of privilege

The Director shall not be deemed to have waived any privilege applicable to any information concerning a Federal Home Loan Bank by transferring, or permitting the transfer of, that information to any other Federal Home Loan Bank for the purposes set out in subsection (a).

(July 22, 1932, ch. 522, §20A, as added Pub. L. 110–289, div. A, title II, §1207, July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2787.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (c), is act June 6, 1934, ch. 404, 48 Stat. 881, which is classified principally to chapter 2B (§78a et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 78a of Title 15 and Tables.
§ 100.51 Scope. ( a ) The term *contribution* includes the payments, services, or other things of value described in this subpart.
( b ) For the purpose of this subpart, a contribution or payment made by an individual shall not be attributed to any other individual, unless otherwise specified by that other individual in accordance with 11 CFR 110.1(k).
### §2214. State laws

State and other laws shall apply to corporations organized pursuant to this part to the same extent such laws would apply to the organizing banks engaged in the same activity in the same jurisdiction: Provided, however, That to the extent that sections 2023, 2098, and 2134 of this title may exempt banks or associations of the Farm Credit System from taxation, such exemptions, other than with respect to franchise taxes, shall not extend to corporations organized pursuant to this part.

(Pub. L. 92–181, title IV, §4.28, as added Pub. L. 96–592, title IV, §404, Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3448; amended Pub. L. 100–399, title IX, §901(k), Aug. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 1007; Pub. L. 102–237, title V, §502(g), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1869.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1991—Pub. L. 102–237 made technical amendment to reference to section 2098 of this title to reflect change in reference to corresponding section of original act.

1988—Pub. L. 100–399 inserted "or associations" and substituted "2023, 2098," for "2055, 2079,".

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

#### Effective Date of 1991 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–237 effective as if included in the provision of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101–624, to which the amendment relates, see section 1101(b)(4) of Pub. L. 102–237, set out as a note under section 1421 of Title 7, Agriculture.

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–399 effective immediately after amendment made by section 401 of Pub. L. 100–233, which was effective 6 months after Jan. 6, 1988, see section 1001(b) of Pub. L. 100–399, set out as a note under section 2002 of this title.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Workers & Retirees 
-  Securing Your Private Information 

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.

# Securing Your Private Information

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation continues to take all measures necessary to strengthen the security and prevent theft of the personal information of participants in pension plans whose benefits are administered by PBGC. To this end, PBGC's Customer Contact Center must have written authorization (or power of attorney ) already on file with PBGC before we can discuss information about a participant with someone other than his or her spouse.

For more information on this requirement, call the Contact Center at 1-800-400-7242. TTY/ASCII users may call 711.

March 11, 2024
**Exhibit 32.1**

**SOCIALWISE, INC.**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Socialwise, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Sandson, Chief Executive 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) 

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) 

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
### §8874. Payment of witness fees

If the court allows fees to any witness in a prize cause, or fees for taking evidence out of the district in which the court sits, and there is no money subject to its order in the cause, the marshal shall pay the fees. He shall be repaid from any money deposited to the order of the court in the cause. Any amount not so repaid to the marshal shall be allowed him as witness fees paid by him in cases in which the United States is a party.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 481, §7674; renumbered §8874, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(9), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1837.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7674 | 34 U.S.C. 1157. | R.S. 4651. |

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7674 of this title as this section.

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the "Company") for
the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eugene B. Johnson, Chief Executive 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:



/s/ EUGENE B. JOHNSONEugene B. Johnson Chief Executive OfficerNovember 6, 2008


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
### §1723f. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–294, title V, §533, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 740

Section, act June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title III, §314, as added Nov. 9, 1978, Pub. L. 95–619, title II, §242, 92 Stat. 3228, related to the purchase of energy conserving home improvement loans and advances of credit by the Association under the direction of the Secretary.
### §945. Continuing jurisdiction and closing of the case

(a) The court may retain jurisdiction over the case for such period of time as is necessary for the successful implementation of the plan.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (a) of this section, the court shall close the case when administration of the case has been completed.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2625; Pub. L. 98–353, title III, §498, July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 384.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### senate report no. 95–989

Section 948 [enacted as section 945] permits the court to retain jurisdiction over the case to ensure successful execution of the plan. The provision is the same as that found in section 96(e) of Chapter 9 of the present Act [section 416(e) of former title 11].

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–353 substituted "implementation" for "execution".

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–353 effective with respect to cases filed 90 days after July 10, 1984, see section 552(a) of Pub. L. 98–353, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.
#### § 100.17 Clearly identified (52 U.S.C. 30101(18)).

The term *clearly identified* means the candidate's name, nickname, photograph, or drawing appears, or the identity of the candidate is otherwise apparent through an unambiguous reference such as “the President,” “your Congressman,” or “the incumbent,” or through an unambiguous reference to his or her status as a candidate such as “the Democratic presidential nominee” or “the Republican candidate for Senate in the State of Georgia.”

[60 FR 35304, July 6, 1995]
### §1701j. Repealed. Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title VIII, §813, 68 Stat. 647

Section, acts Apr. 20, 1950, ch. 94, title V, §504, 64 Stat. 81; Sept. 1, 1951, ch. 378, title VI, §613(a), 65 Stat. 316; June 30, 1953, ch. 170, §23, 67 Stat. 127, related to control of charges and fees, imposed by lenders upon builders and purchasers in connection with home loans, by the Federal Housing Commissioner and the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.