alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND THE UNAUDITED
CONNSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1999 OF PHOTONICS CORPORATION, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999              JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                           75                       42
<SECURITIES>                      8                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                     0                      313
<ALLOWANCES>                      0                        0
<INVENTORY>                       0                      350
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 75                      816
<PP&E>                            0                       21
<DEPRECIATION>                   00                       14
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   75                      852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           000                     4018

<BONDS>                           0                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0                        0
<PREFERRED>                    2328                    2,328
<COMMON>                      44085                   44,085
<OTHER-SE>                        0                   (3291)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     75                      852
<SALES>                         724                    3,484
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                724                    3,484
<CGS>                           230                    2,952
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   918                    3,140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              540                      389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (964)                 ( 2,705)
<INCOME-TAX>                      0                        1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (964)                 ( 2,705)
<DISCONTINUED>                    0                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                (452)                       0
<CHANGES>                         0                        0
<NET-INCOME>                 (1,416)                 ( 2,708)
<EPS-BASIC>                  (.32)                 (   .62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (.32)                 (   .62)


</TABLE>
# C_2007069EN.01002001.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/20

---

Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-14/07)

(2007/C 69/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision C(2006) 5163 final of 3 November 2006 on the reduction of the financial assistance of the ERDF in the Operational Program for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the Community initiative KMU (ERDF No 94.02.10.029) in so far as the reduction exceeds the ERDF assistance not claimed; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C(2006) 5163 final of 3 November 2006 on the reduction of the financial assistance of the ERDF in the Operational Program for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the Community initiative KMU (ERDF No 94.02.10.029) in so far as the reduction exceeds the ERDF assistance not claimed;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision reduces the assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the Operational Program for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the Community Initiative.

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the Commission's authorising decision K(95) 1427 of 11 July 1995.

Moreover, it submits that there is an infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1), as the conditions for reduction are not satisfied. It also submits that the departures from the indicative financing plan do not constitute a significant change of the program.

1

Even if there were a significant change of the program, the applicant submits that the Commission previously agreed to a flexible application of the indicative financing plans by virtue of its Guidelines for the financial closure of operational measures (1994-1999) from the Structural Funds (SEK (1999) 1316).

On the assumption that the conditions for a reduction are satisfied, the applicant complains that the defendant failed to use its discretion in relation to the specific program. The Commission should have considered whether a reduction of the ERDF assistance was proportionate.

---

(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, 31.12.1988, p. 1).

1

---
EX-35.4


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Rd
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884-2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation
60 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
Certificate Administrator and Paying Agent for the Crossgate Mall Mortgage Loan
(in such capacity, "Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for
the year ending December 31, 2013 (the "reporting period"):

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the reporting period and of its
    performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A
    hereto (the "Servicing Agreement(s)") has been made under my supervision;
    and

(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled
    all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material
    respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule B.


March 20, 2014

/s/ Brian Smith
Brian Smith
Vice President


(page)


To: Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation

Schedule A

list of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2012, by and among
DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating
Advisor and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent
and Custodian relating to the Series COMM 2012-CCRE2 Commercial Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, relating to the Crossgates Mall Loan Combination, a pari
passu portion of which is included in the Series COMM 2012-CCRE1 Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.


(page)


To: Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation

Schedule B

Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

Not Applicable
### §3304. Costs and expenses of Council

One-fifth of the costs and expenses of the Council, including the salaries of its employees, shall be paid by each of the Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies. Annual assessments for such share shall be levied by the Council based upon its projected budget for the year, and additional assessments may be made during the year if necessary.

(Pub. L. 95–630, title X, §1005, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3695.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon the expiration of 120 days after Nov. 10, 1978, see section 2101 of Pub. L. 95–630, set out as a note under section 375b of this title.
# 2008 50 50 Healthy
EXHIBIT 35.1

SERVICERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Re: Assessment of compliance for services provided pursuant to the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated February 27, 2007, the Series Supplement,
dated September 29, 2016, the US$ Note Trust Deed, dated September 29, 2016, and other transaction documents relating to SMART ABS Series 2016-2US Trust (collectively, the Agreements).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:



| | 1. | I, Karleen Munns, am a Director of Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited (the Servicer).
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the Servicers activities during the period from October 14, 2016 (the date of issuance of the SMART ABS Series 2016-2US Trust transaction subject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through
March 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance under each of the Agreements has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: 26 June 2017           
|                             
|/s/ Karleen Munns            
|Karleen Munns                
|Director                     
|                             
|Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited
§ 158.522 Selection and appointment. ( a ) The Department selects an individual for employment in the DHS-CS based on the individual's CTMS qualifications, as determined under the assessment program described in § 158.520.
( b ) Prior to finalizing the selection of an individual for employment in the DHS-CS, the Department considers the availability of preference eligibles for appointment under this part, including those recruited based on specific strategies described in § 158.510(d), who have participated in the assessment program and met applicable rating or scoring thresholds, as described in § 158.520(a). When a selection is imminent and there are both preference eligibles and non-preference eligibles undergoing final consideration, the Department regards status as a preference eligible as a positive factor in accordance with CTMS policy.
( c ) The Department appoints an individual to a qualified position under the authority in 6 U.S.C. 658 and this part, and all such appointments are in the excepted service and are one of the following types of appointment: ( 1 ) A renewable appointment under § 158.523(a);
( 2 ) A continuing appointment under § 158.523(b); or
( 3 ) An advisory appointment under § 158.523(c).
( d ) As part of selecting an individual for employment in the DHS-CS and appointing an individual to a qualified position under this part, the Department: ( 1 ) Determines applicable work and career structures, including the individual's initial work level, using the work valuation system described in § 158.404;
( 2 ) Sets the individual's initial salary using the salary system as described in § 158.620; and
( 3 ) Matches the individual with an initial assignment as described in § 158.703(c).
( e ) No qualified position may be established through the non-competitive conversion of a current Federal employee from an appointment made outside the authority of this part to an appointment made under this part.
( f ) An individual who accepts an appointment to a qualified position under this part voluntarily accepts an appointment in the excepted service.
( g ) A DHS-CS employee serves in the same qualified position throughout a single continuing appointment under this part and throughout multiple, consecutive renewable or continuing appointments under this part, regardless of any changes in the employee's assignments, including primary DHS organization, or changes in the employee's official worksite.
(logo)TORCHLIGHT

LOANSERVICES

 

 

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

 

WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C7, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-C7 (the “Trust”)

 

I,Jacob Baron, on behalf of Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as special servicer(the “Certifying Servicer”), certify to RBSCommercial Funding Inc., theDepositor, each Other Depositor and their respective officers, directors andaffiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that they will rely upon thiscertification, that:

 

1.       I(or Servicing Officers under my supervision) have reviewed the CertifyingServicer’s activities during the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “ReportingPeriod”) and the Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement; and

 

2.       Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  

 

 

Date:February 28, 2018

 

TORCHLIGHTLOAN SERVICES, LLC

 

 

By:/s/ Jacob Baron

Name:Jacob Baron

Title:Authorized Signatory

 

 

475Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10017

T212.883.2800   F 212.883.2560

E info@torchlightloanservices.com

www.torchlightinvestors.com
-  Home 

# In This Section

                      -  Who We Are 
                      -  PHMSA Guidance 
                      -  Organization 
                      -  Leadership 
                      -  PHMSA FAQs 
                      -  Careers 
                      -  Working with PHMSA 

# General FAQs

                      - What is PHMSA? 
                      - What does PHMSA do? 
                      - How is PHMSA organized? 
                      - Who is the chief executive of PHMSA? 
                      -  What is PHMSA?     	The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, is a U.S. Department of Transportation agency. It was created under the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (P.L. 108-426) of 2004.   	 
                      - What does PHMSA do?     	PHMSA develops and enforces regulations for the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the nation's 2.6 million mile pipeline transportation system and the nearly 1 million daily shipments of hazardous materials by land, sea, and air.   	 
                      - How is PHMSA organized?     	PHMSA comprises two safety offices, the Office of Pipeline Safety and the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. PHMSA is located in five regions across the country and headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Training Center is centrally-located in Oklahoma City.   	 
                      - Who is the chief executive of PHMSA?     	The Administrator is the Agency's chief executive, who appointed by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate. The PHMSA Administrator provides direction to nearly 500 employees within the agency's Washington, DC Headquarters and Regions. PHMSA's administrator is supported by a  senior leadership team  comprised of a Deputy Administrator, Chief Safety Officer, Chief Counsel, Associate Administrators for Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety, Chief Financial Officer, and Directors for Public Affairs and Civil Rights.
# C_2006294EN.01005502.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/55

---

Action brought on 22 September 2006 — Olympiaki Aeroporia Ipiresies v Commission

(Case T-268/06)

(2006/C 294/113)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Olympiaki Aeroporia Ipiresies A.E. (Olympic Airways Services S.A.) (represented by: P. Anestis, T. Soames, G. Goeteyn, S. Mavrogenis, M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato, lawyers,)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | annul, pursuant to Articles 230 EC and 231 EC, the imposition of a maximum amount of DR 668 783 057 under Article 1 of Commission Decision E(2006) 1580 final of 26 April 2006 in respect of compensation to which the applicant is lawfully entitled for the period 11 to 14 September 2001; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, pursuant to Articles 230 EC and 231 EC, the imposition of a maximum amount of DR 668 783 057 under Article 1 of Commission Decision E(2006) 1580 final of 26 April 2006 in respect of compensation to which the applicant is lawfully entitled for the period 11 to 14 September 2001;

| — | annul Article 2 of the contested decision, according to which the compensation paid to the applicant is not compatible with the common market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2 of the contested decision, according to which the compensation paid to the applicant is not compatible with the common market;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is directed against Commission Decision E(2006) 1580 final of 26 April 2006, concerning a State aid scheme C-39/2003 (ex NN 119/02) put into effect by Greece in favour of the airline industry to compensate for losses suffered between 11 and 14 September 2001.

First, the applicant maintains that the Commission, in concluding that the financial aid granted to make good the damage which arose after 14 September 2001 is not directly linked to the closure of the airspace of the United States because of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and consequently constitutes State aid that is incompatible with the common market, clearly committed an error of assessment of the factual circumstances and thus infringed Article 87(2)(b) EC.

In conclusion, the applicant alleges that the complete lack of reasons for the rejection of the compensation in question constitutes infringement of an essential procedural requirement which renders the decision invalid.

---
### §322. Determination on application

In acting upon such applications the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall consider the financial condition of the applying bank, the general character of its management, and whether or not the corporate powers exercised are consistent with the purposes of this chapter.

(Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §9 (par.), as added June 21, 1917, ch. 32, §3, 40 Stat. 233; amended Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, §203(a), 49 Stat. 704.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning act Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, known as the Federal Reserve Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see References in Text note set out under section 226 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section is comprised of the fourth par. of section 9 of act Dec. 23, 1913, as amended. The fourth par. constituted the second par. of section 9 in 1917 (40 Stat. 232), became the third par. in 1927 (44 Stat. 1229), and became the fourth par. in 1950 (64 Stat. 458). For further details, see Codification note set out under section 321 of this title.

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

#### Change of Name

Section 203(a) of act Aug. 23, 1935, changed name of Federal Reserve Board to Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
# C_2007056EN.01004401.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/44

---

Action brought on 19 January 2007 — Skoulidi v Commission

(Case F-4/07)

(2007/C 56/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eleni-Eleftheria Skoulidi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

| — | Award the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 28 March 2006 refusing to allow her to benefit under the exchange agreement concluded between the Commission and the Greek Government; |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 28 March 2006 refusing to allow her to benefit under the exchange agreement concluded between the Commission and the Greek Government;

| — | Assess that damage on equitable principles at EUR 200 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

Assess that damage on equitable principles at EUR 200 000;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, after having been made available to the Greek Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs for eight months, applied to be able to benefit under the Scheme of Exchanges of officials between the Commission and the Member States in order to complete the tasks she had performed during that period. After having obtained the agreement of a number of Commission departments and the Greek Government, the applicant received a negative decision from her institution, on the grounds that the exchange was contrary to the applicable provisions governing the making available of officials.

In her action, the applicant considers that the Commission is guilty of misconduct on a number of points, namely:

| — | failure to demonstrate the diligence required of every administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to demonstrate the diligence required of every administration;

| — | failure to comply with the commitments resulting from the exchange agreement which it itself concluded with the Greek Government, thereby infringing the applicant's legitimate expectations and the general Community interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to comply with the commitments resulting from the exchange agreement which it itself concluded with the Greek Government, thereby infringing the applicant's legitimate expectations and the general Community interest;

| — | inappropriate remarks about the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

inappropriate remarks about the applicant;

| — | discrimination against the applicant in relation to other officials who were made available to certain national administrations for a longer period. |
| --- | --- |

—

discrimination against the applicant in relation to other officials who were made available to certain national administrations for a longer period.

---