alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.3

OFFICERS CERTIFICATE

I, Karen Montbach, a
Managing Director of Citibank, N.A. (the Company), hereby certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the Agreement), dated as of December 11, 2011, between CCRE Commercial Mortgage Securities, L.P., as
Depositor, KeyBank National Association, as successor Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor, Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and U.S. Bank National Association
as successor Trustee to Citibank, N.A. (the Predecessor Trustee)1, the following:

1. A review of the Companys activities as Certificate Administrator, Custodian, and Predecessor Trustee during the reporting period
ending December 31, 2014 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period ending December 31, 2014.

This statement is given by the undersigned as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the undersigneds individual capacity.

Date: February 27, 2015



Citibank, N.A.By:

/s/ Karen MontbachName:

Karen MontbachTitle:

Managing Director




|1 | On February 28, 2013, Citibank, N.A., as predecessor trustee, U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank), as successor trustee, and Bank of America, National Association, as master servicer, entered
into an Instrument of Appointment and Acceptance of Successor Trustee, pursuant to which U.S. Bank was appointed successor trustee of the issuing entity. See the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 5, 2014 for additional information.
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### § 215.13 Bond.

Every mineral lease made and entered into under the regulations in this part, by an Indian or by the superintendent as his representative or in his behalf, must be accompanied by a surety bond, executed by the lessee and by a responsible surety company or two or more satisfactory sureties, guaranteeing the payment of all deferred installments of bonus and the payment of all specified royalties and rentals and the performance of all covenants and agreements undertaken by the lessee. Such bonds, unless authorized by the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative, with the consent of the Indian landowner, shall be not less than the following amounts:

For less than 80 acres—$2,500

For 80 acres and less than 120 acres—3,500

For 120 acres or more—5,000

*Provided, however,* That the lessee may, in lieu of such surety bond and upon execution of a proper penal bond to the United States in the sum prescribed and a proper power of attorney to the Secretary of the Interior, submit therewith United States bonds or notes in the aggregate sum prescribed as security for the carrying out of the terms, conditions, and provisions of the lease: *Provided further,* That a lessee may file in lieu of such individual lease bonds, one bond in a sum to be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior covering all leases to which he is or may become a party. The right is specifically reserved to the Secretary of the Interior to require an increase of the amount of any bond above the sum named in any particular case where he deems it necessary to require such increased bond.

[26 FR 164, Jan. 10, 1961. Redesignated at 47 FR 13327, Mar. 30, 1982]
#### Brian Miller, Appellant, v Joseph Tacopina et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 43]

Resettled judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibble F. Fayne, J.), entered January 26, 2006, after a jury trial, awarding plaintiff damages of $5,000 each for past and future *255pain and suffering, $4,049 for medical expenses and $4,334.81 for property damage, subject to apportionment of liability 25% to defendants and 75% to plaintiff, unanimously modified, on the facts, the awards for past and future pain and suffering vacated and a new trial directed on those issues only, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, unless defendants stipulate, within 20 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, to an increase of those portions of the award, prior to apportionment, to $40,000 each, and to entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith.

Plaintiff motorcyclist suffered a mild separation of the acromioclavicular joint in his left shoulder, for which he underwent two months of physical therapy to improve his mobility and reduce his pain. The medical expert testimony was uniform in expressing the opinion that such injury, a shoulder sprain, would not ordinarily warrant surgery. An MRI report indicated a tear in plaintiffs, supraspinatus tendon at the rota-tor cuff, although this conclusion was challenged by defendants’ expert radiologist, who conceded that he had not reviewed plaintiffs medical records prior to trial. There is no basis in the record for disturbing the jury’s determination regarding the weight to be accorded the conflicting expert evidence *(see Torricelli v Pisacano,*9 AD3d 291, 293 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 612 [2004]) in rejecting plaintiffs claim for future surgical expenses.

Plaintiff, 27 years old at the time of the accident, testified to continuing pain up to the time of trial, restricting his ability to engage in sports activities, and still causing him discomfort in sleeping every night. Plaintiffs treating orthopedist confirmed that plaintiffs shoulder injury was “painful” and “permanent,” and defendants’ expert orthopedist refused to rule out the possibility that the injury would be permanent.

There is no support in the record for plaintiffs argument that the challenged damage awards reflected a compromise verdict; our decision to increase the pain and suffering awards is based on material deviation from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances (CPLR 5501 [c]; *Claudio v City of New York,*280 AD2d 403 [2001]). Concur—Andrias, J.P, Marlow, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
§ 162.512 How long may the term of a WEEL run? ( a ) A WEEL must provide for a definite term, state if there is an option to renew and if so, provide for a definite term for the renewal period. WEELs are for project evaluation purposes, and therefore may have: ( 1 ) An initial term that is no longer than 3 years; and
( 2 ) One renewal period not to exceed 3 years.
( b ) The exercise of the option to renew must be in writing and the WEEL must specify: ( 1 ) The time and manner in which the option must be exercised or is automatically effective;
( 2 ) That confirmation of the renewal will be submitted to us, unless the WEEL provides for automatic renewal; and
( 3 ) Additional consideration, if any, that will be due upon the exercise of the option to renew or the start of the renewal term.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determ ined that th is opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set fo rth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 27, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________ No. 05-30843 (Sum mary Calendar)

_________________ FRANK D STEWART, Plaint iff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:04-CV-01724 Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Frank Stewart, recipient of supplemental soci al security income, appeals the district court’s entry of judgment against the Com missio ne r i

n t he amount of $2,731.20. In his appeal from the2

Soci al Security Administ ration, Stewart sought a judgment orderi ng the Com

missio ner to re issue several benefit checks that he claimed he had not cashed. He also sought review of the Com missio ner’s decision to deduct $43 a month from his benefits for Medicare premiums. Stewart argues that the district court erred in holding that his claim that the Com missio ner erroneously deducted $43 a mo nt h from his benefit s to cover hi s Medicare premiums was not administ rati

vely exhausted. Stewart argues that he made an oral request to the Commissioner that this amo unt not be deducted. However, he fails to cite any evidence in the record that this claim was presented to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) or the Appeals Council. He therefore has not met his burden of establishing exhaustion. Stewart next conte nds that the di strict court erroneousl y o ffset th e judgment against the Com miss io ner by $1,153.80, which is the amount of an alleged overpayment Stewart received. Stewart argues that the issue of an of fset was not pled or raised by the Com missio ner in the district court. Nor does ei

ther party or the di strict court di rect our attention to a valid administrative finding of an overpay

ment . The district court relied on the ALJ’s finding that an overpayment had been made, but the Appeals Council vacated this finding in part because a mo tion fo r reconsideration was pending before the Com

missio ner on the issue. Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court to ascertain whether there was or is now a proper administ rati ve finding of an overpayment and if so, to resol ve the issue of an overpayment. The mo tions to stri

ke the appellee’s brief and hear the case on the appellant’s brief and record excerpts alo ne are DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and the case REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

NALIK SHARIFF S. SCOTT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 348 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of December, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
### §1623. Financial assistance to certain employees in acquisition of critical skills

(a) The Secretary of Defense shall establish an undergraduate training program with respect to civilian employees of the Defense Intelligence Agency that is similar in purpose, conditions, content, and administration to the program which the Secretary of Defense is authorized to establish under section 16 of the National Security Agency Act of 1959 (50 U.S.C. 3614) for civilian employees of the National Security Agency.

(b) Any payments made by the Secretary to carry out the program required to be established by subsection (a) may be made in any fiscal year only to the extent that appropriated funds are available for that purpose.

(Added Pub. L. 101–193, title V, §507(a)(1), Nov. 30, 1989, 103 Stat. 1709, §1608; renumbered §1623, Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XVI, §1632(a)(2), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2745; amended Pub. L. 113–291, div. A, title X, §1071(c)(9), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3509.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1623, added Pub. L. 99–145, title IX, §924(a)(1), Nov. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 698; amended Pub. L. 99–661, div. A, title XIII, §1343(a)(10), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3993; Pub. L. 100–26, §7(j)(4), Apr. 21, 1987, 101 Stat. 283; Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title VIII, §853(c)(3), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1519, related to education, training, and experience requirements for general and flag officers assigned to a procurement command, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XII, §1207(c)(3), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1665, effective Oct. 1, 1992.

A prior section 1624, added Pub. L. 99–145, title IX, §924(a)(1), Nov. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 698, required a training program for quality assurance personnel, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XII, §1207(c)(4), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1665; Pub. L. 102–190, div. A, title X, §1061(a)(26)(C)(i), Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1474, effective Oct. 1, 1993.

#### Amendments

2014—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 113–291 substituted "(50 U.S.C. 3614)" for "(50 U.S.C. 402 note)".

1996—Pub. L. 104–201 renumbered section 1608 of this title as this section.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 101–193, title V, §507(b), Nov. 30, 1989, 103 Stat. 1710, provided that: "Section 1608 [now 1623] of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 30, 1989]."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         9,363
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  813
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,475
<PP&E>                                         1,429
<DEPRECIATION>                                 180
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 27,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,270
<BONDS>                                        139
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       32
<OTHER-SE>                                     24,785
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   27,226
<SALES>                                        547
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               652
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,658
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,020)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,020)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
#### Frederick Wilhelmi *v.*Frederick Haffner.

1. Garnishment. Where a garnishee in an attachment suit answered that he had given the defendant in the attachment his promissory note, had last seen it in his possession prior to the service of the garnishee process, but had since been told by him that he had sold it before the service, and the note had since been presented for payment by another party claiming to own it, it was held *prima facie*that he would not be liable as garnishee.

3. Burden op proof. The garnishee in such case could not be required to prove the validity of the assignment of the note, or to swear to it, as it was not a fact within his knowledge. If the transfer of the note was not in good faith it would devolve upon the plaintiff in attachment to show that fact by proper proof. Plaintiff could make an issue on that question and the garnishee could notify the holder of the note to appear and defend his title.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of LaSalle county; the Hon. Madison E. Hollister, Judge, presiding.

This is a case where George Gleim brought an attachment suit in the court below against Frederick Wilhelmi, and Frederick Haffner'was served with process as garnishee. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Mr. D. P. Jones, for the plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Bull & Follett, for the defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

In this case, the answer of the garnishee was not excepted to for insufficiency, or in any way controverted, and he was properly discharged. It states all the facts of which he would *223probably be cognizant, which were, simply, that he had given the defendant in the attachment a nóte; had last seen it in his possession before the garnishee process was served; had been told by him he had sold it before the service, and it had been since presented to him for payment by one Hoage, who claimed to own it. He could not be required to prove the validity of the assignment or to swear to it, as it was not a fact within his knowledge, or with which he had any concern. He was required to state whether he owed the defendant in the attachment. He stated the facts within his knowledge

O

from which the presumption would be, he did not owe him. If the transfer of the note was not in good faith, it was for the plaintiff to show that fact by proper proof. The plaintiff could have made up an issue upon this question if he had desired, and the garnishee could have notified the holder to appear and defend his title.

*Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2017093EN.01024301.xml

| 24.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/243 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/243

---

P7_TA(2014)0059

Appointment of a member of the Court of Auditors (Klaus-Heiner LEHNE — DE)

European Parliament decision of 4 February 2014 on the nomination of Klaus Heiner Lehne as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0423/2013 — 2013/0813(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2017/C 093/40)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0423/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0423/2013),

| — | having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0050/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0050/2014),

| A. | whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| B. | whereas at its meeting of 23 January 2014, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

B.

whereas at its meeting of 23 January 2014, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors;

| 1. | Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Klaus Heiner Lehne as a Member of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Klaus Heiner Lehne as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997         JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                7,218               5,088
<SECURITIES>                              0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                        70,930              82,140
<ALLOWANCES>                          1,635               1,612
<INVENTORY>                          32,236              30,789
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    117,947             127,986
<PP&E>                              587,910             625,286
<DEPRECIATION>                      327,614             344,716
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      385,491             444,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               113,132             111,734
<BONDS>                                   0                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                   0
<PREFERRED>                               0                   0
<COMMON>                                  0                   0
<OTHER-SE>                              337            (432,247)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        385,491             444,149
<SALES>                             521,707             279,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    521,707             279,471
<CGS>                               437,301             223,002
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       437,301             223,002
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     58,653              45,166
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   14,940              30,201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      10,813             (18,898)
<INCOME-TAX>                            600                   8
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  10,213             (18,906)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                 675
<CHANGES>                                 0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                         10,213             (19,581)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.00                0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.00                0.00
        


</TABLE>