alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

83-14 

June 30, 1983 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4007 Payment of Premiums

29 CFR 2610 Declaration and Payment of Premiums 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter and telephone calls regarding payment of premiums for an individual in certain

situations. 

The facts, as stated in your letter and telephone conversations are as follows. An individual has credited service

under a multiemployer plan, but is not vested. In the plan year in question, the individual works less than 500 hours and

thus, under the terms of the plan, does not earn any credited service for the plan year. A "break in service" under the plan

occurs when an individual's temporary break in service equals the individual's continuous period of service. In the

situation you describe, the individual has not yet incurred a break in service under the plan. 

You inquired whether a premium was due for the individual described above for the plan year in which the individual

works less than 500 hours. 

Under 29 C.F.R. § 2610.5(b), a multiemployer plan is required to pay premiums for "each individual who is a

participant in such plan on the last day of the preceding plan year." The term "participant" is defined in 29 C.F.R. §

2610.2. Under 29 C.F.R. § 2610.2(a)(2), a participant [*2] includes: 

Any non-vested individual who is not currently in employment covered by the plan but who is earning or retaining

credited service under the plan. This category does not include a non-vested former employee who has incurred a break

in service the greater of one year or the break in service period specified in the plan. 

In the situation describe above, the individual is not currently in employment covered by the plan because he or she

worked less than 500 hours. The individual is retaining credited service under the plan for prior years and has not

incurred a break in service the greather of one year or the period specified in the plan. Consequently, for the plan year

in question, the individual is a participant as defined in 29 C.F.R. § 2610.2(a)(2) for whom a premium would be owed

under 29 C.F.R. 2610.5(b). 

You also inquired whether a premium would be owned for the individual in the situation described above if the term

participant were defined in the plan to exclude such individuals. In that case, the individual would still fall under the

definition of participant in 29 C.F.R. § 2610 and therefore would still be a participant for purposes of payment of

premiums under [*3] 29 C.F.R. § 2610. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
#### Louis Pasquariello *v.*Susan Pasquariello

*Charles M. Needle,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Irving H. Perlmutter,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued April 2

decided April 2, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted unless the defendant files her request for a finding and draft finding on or before April 25, 1974.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS809 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
# C_2006310EN.01000701.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2006 — Annelore Hamilton v Volksbank Filder eG

(Case C-412/06)

(2006/C 310/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Annelore Hamilton

Applicant:

Defendant: Volksbank Filder eG

Defendant:

Question referred

| 1. | May the first paragraph of Article 4 and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is not precluded from placing a time-limit on the right of cancellation given by Article 5 of the Directive, despite the consumer having been given defective notice, so that it expires one month after both parties have performed their obligations under the agreement in full?
  In the event that the Court answers the first question referred in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

May the first paragraph of Article 4 and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is not precluded from placing a time-limit on the right of cancellation given by Article 5 of the Directive, despite the consumer having been given defective notice, so that it expires one month after both parties have performed their obligations under the agreement in full?

1

In the event that the Court answers the first question referred in the negative:

| 2. | Should Directive 85/577/EEC be interpreted as meaning that the right of renunciation cannot be forfeited by the consumer — in particular after the completion of the contract — if he has not been given notice in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 4 of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Directive 85/577/EEC be interpreted as meaning that the right of renunciation cannot be forfeited by the consumer — in particular after the completion of the contract — if he has not been given notice in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 4 of the Directive?

---

(1)  OJ L 372, p. 31.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 669 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      December 8, 2000.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 128) making further continuing appropriations for the 
fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one 
motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 8.1



|                                          |  |                               |  |                                           
|----------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary                                |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Principal Activity                        
|Banco Francés (Cayman) Ltd.               |  | Cayman Islands                |  | Banking services                          
|Atuel Fideicomisos S.A.                   |  | Republic of Argentina         |  | Trust services                            
|Francés Valores Sociedad de Bolsa S.A.    |  | Republic of Argentina         |  | Stock exchange brokerage                  
|Credilogros Compañía Financiera S.A.      |  | Republic of Argentina         |  | Financial Institution                     
|Consolidar Cía. de Seguros de Retiro S.A. |  | Republic of Argentina         |  | Insurance                                 
|Consolidar Seguros de Vida S.A.           |  | Republic of Argentina         |  | Insurance                                 
|Consolidar AFJP S.A.                      |  | Republic of Argentina         |  | Pension and Retirement Fund Administrators
|PSA Compañía Financiera S.A.              |  | Republic of Argentina         |  | Financial Institution                     
|Rombo Compañía Financiera S.A.            |  | Republic of Argentina         |  | Financial Institution                     
|Consolidar ART S.A.                       |  | Republic of Argentina         |  | Workers Compensation Insurance            
|BBVA Seguros S.A.                         |  | Republic of Argentina         |  | Insurance Company                         
|Assurex S.A.                              |  | Republic of Argentina         |  | Insurance Broker
September

13,2002 MEMORAI\IDTJM Subject Owens

Lake Background

PM-10Calculation

Method From: Duane

Ono To: Owens

Lake Dust ID File

Background

PM-10 - I got the background number from Bill Stanley

andit turned

out to be 19.5 ug/m3 usingthe lowest PM-10 concentration at any of the 6 sites

on exceedance

days. The lowestconcentration

screens out hous when directions were from the lake bed andwhen we have less than 13 hours

of hourly PM-10data

for what is left. This number will be rounded

to 20 for the modeling. I sent

the attached

insructior$ on how to do the screening to Mark Schaaf, Kent Norville, Ken Ricbmond andJohnCastleberry.

Copies were also give to Ellen and Shirley.Owens Lake Background PM-10 Calculation Method Drafted: September

ll, 2002

Steps To Determine

the Background

PM-10 Concentration

for the Owens

Lake model. Step 1: Identiff all days during the period

from January

l, 2000 through June 30,2002 whenthe 24-houraverage PM-10 concentration

was gteater

than 150 ug/m3 at any of the 6 PM-l0 monitor sites. Step 2: Compile

the hourly PM-10 concentrations for all six sites

for exceedance

days identified in Step l. List ttre date, hour, wind speed,

andwind direction for each hotrly PM-10value. Step 3: Deletehorus

whenthe wind direction comes from the lakeward

directionto the monitor; Dirty Socks Exclude

WD > 270 OR WD < 40 Keeler Exclude180 < WD < 320 Flat Rock Exclude

235 < WD < 330 ShellCut Exclude

WD > 230 OR WD < 25 Olancha Exclude

WD > 350 OR WD < 30 Lone Pine Exclude130 < WD < 160 Step 4: Calculate

the average

daily concenfiation

for each site after step3 using the remaining

hours. Do not replace

the deleted

hours with zero. Show

the number ofhours used

for the daily average

for each day. Step 5: List the lowestdaily value from Step 4 for any of the 6 sites

that have morethan 12hours of PM-10

data. Step 6: Calculate

the average

value from Step

5 for the days

that are less

than 50 ug/m3to determine

the background

PM-10 value.
TRANSFER TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL CORP.





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 of Transfer Technology International Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Chris Trina, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





/s/ Chris TrinaChris TrinaChief Executive Officer
Chief Financial OfficerSeptember 14, 2010





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Transfer Technology International Corp. and will be retained by Transfer Technology International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Leothis West, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# FILED SEP 26 2011 Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts forthe District of Columbia



### v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 

# 11 l**'G~** Rosie Rios, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review ofplaintiffs pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant the informapauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement ofthe grounds for the court'sjurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'· Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); seeAshcroftv. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Oralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice ofthe claim being asserted so that they canprepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and detennine whetherthe doctrine ofresjudicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). In pleading fraud or mistake, "aparty must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).Plaintiff, a District ofColumbiaresident, sues an individual with a District ofColumbia address for fraud. He seeks $100,000 in damages. Compl. at 2. As with plaintiffs previously dismissed cases against Ms. Rios, no facts are stated in support ofthe claim. See West v. Rios, No. 10-cv-2337 (UNA) (D.D.C. Dec. 30,2010), aff'd, No. 11-5003 (D.C. Cir. June 21, 2011) (dismissing case without prejudice); West v. Rios, No. 10-cv-2098 (UNA) (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 2010) (same).1 Plaintiffhas yet to cure the pleading deficiency, and the sparse allegations "constitute the sort ofpatently insubstantial claims" that deprive the Court ofsubject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp.2d 177, 178 (D.D.C. 2011) ("A district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint 'ispatently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.' ") (quoting Tooley, 586 F.3d at 1009). Therefore, the Court will dismiss the instant complaint with prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: September 

## 1,

# ~011

1 In each action, plaintifflists the defendant's address as 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C., which is the address ofthe Department ofthe Treasury. The Court surmises that plaintiffis suing U.S. Treasurer Rosa Gumataotao Rios. 2
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (FormsS-3 No. 333-112311, No. 333-38167, No. 333-82685,No. 333-92577, No. 333-36790 and No. 333-51914)and in the related prospectuses, and to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 333-11299, No. 333-35287,No. 333-85575, 333-59158, No. 333-34320, No. 333-52804,No. 333-59160, No. 333-123452 and No. 333-129269)pertaining to the 1993 Stock Plan, the 1996 Nonemployee Directors Stock OptionPlan, the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan, the GMS/Affymetrix 1998 Stock Plan, theAffymetrix/Neomorphic, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan, the Amended andRestated 2000 Equity Incentive Plan of Affymetrix, Inc. and the ParAlleleBioScience, Inc. 2001 Stock Option Plan of Affymetrix, Inc. of our reportsdated March 2, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statementsand schedule of Affymetrix, Inc., Affymetrix, Inc. management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofAffymetrix, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2005.
| /s/ ERNST & YOUNG  LLP |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| Palo Alto, California           |   |
| March 2, 2006              |   |

 

----
Exhibit 13.2

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 annual report on Form 20-F of Manchester United plc (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended
30 June 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cliff Baty, Chief Financial Officer of the Company and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



Date:
13 October 2017



By:

/s/ CLIFF BATY Cliff Baty Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32

                    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 of Atlantica, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), We, Thomas J. Howells, President and Travis Jenson, Secretary 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.


Date: 6/24/2005                          /s/Thomas J. Howells
     ----------                          ---------------------
                                         Thomas J. Howells
                                         President and director


Date: 6/24/2005                          /s/Travis Jenson
     ----------                          ---------------------
                                         Travis Jenson
                                         Secretary and director
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 11779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4771]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket<greek-i> EPA-RO4-SFUND-2011-0149, FRL-9274-9]


Puckett Smelter Superfund Site; Mountainboro, Etowah County, AL; 
Notice of Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement for 
reimbursement of past response costs concerning the Puckett Smelter 
Superfund Site located in Mountainboro, Etowah county, Alabama for 
publication.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until 
April 4, 2011. The Agency will consider all comments received and may 
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received 
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. 
Painter. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-
SFUND-2011-0149 or Site name Puckett Smelter Superfund Site by one of 
the following methods:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/sf/enforce.htm.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b6e6d7dfd8c2d3c498e6d7c3dad7f6d3c6d798d1d9c0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b1b2a22253f2e39651b2a3e272a0b2e3b2a652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

    Dated: February 10, 2011.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund 
Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-4771 Filed 3-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
| logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust ServicesMAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

RBS Commercial Funding Inc. 

600 Washington Boulevard

Stamford, Connecticut 06901

 

 

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage

Securities Inc. Commercial Mortgage Certificates Series 2012-C7

 

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2012 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

March 3, 2015

 

/s/  Brian Smith 

BRIAN SMITH 

Vice President

 

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |
|------------------------|
August 3, 2015

Mr. Eugene Ahn

President

AHNTECH, Inc.

1931 Old Middlefield Way, Suite D

Mountain View, CA 94043

Dear Mr. Ahn:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121,

91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.4 17(a) and (b) of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and

what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your May 19, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of AH NTECH, Inc. into the

public docket (No. FAA− 20 15

− 2114 ), but we are unable to process your request any further.

The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed).

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Avia tion Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 1 1.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

I f you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3