alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(logo)DHG DIXON HUGHES GOODMAN LLP

 

**Reportof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Tothe Management of C-III Asset Management LLC:

 

Wehave examined management of C-III Asset Management LLC’s (the “Company”)assertion that the Company complied with the servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for alltransactions for which the Company acted as servicer involving first liencommercial mortgage loans (the “Platform”), excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii),1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(i) – 1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(v),1122(d)(4)(ix) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are notapplicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to thePlatform, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment ofCompliance with Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB ServicingCriteria dated February 10, 2020 as of and for the year ended December 31,2019.  The Company’s management is responsible for its assertion. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about theCompany’s compliance with the specified requirements based on our examination.

 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards establishedby the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by thePublic Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  Thosestandards require that we plan and perform the examination to obtain reasonableassurance about whether management’s assertion about compliance with thespecified requirements is fairly stated, in all material respects. Anexamination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence about whethermanagement’s assertion is fairly stated, in all material respects. The nature,timing, and extent of the procedures selected depend on our judgment, includingan assessment of the risks of material misstatement of management’s assertion,whether due to fraud or error. We believe that the evidence we obtained issufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

Ourexamination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliancewith the specified requirements.

 

Inour opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with theaforementioned applicable servicing criteria included in the accompanyingManagement’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria dated February 10, 2020 as of andfor the year ended December 31, 2019 is fairly stated, in all materialrespects.

 

/s/Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP

 

Asheville,North Carolina 

February10, 2020
§ 38.250 Core Principle 4. The board of trade shall have the capacity and responsibility to prevent manipulation, price distortion, and disruptions of the delivery or cash-settlement process through market surveillance, compliance, and enforcement practices and procedures, including: ( a ) Methods for conducting real-time monitoring of trading; and
( b ) Comprehensive and accurate trade reconstructions.
### §1862s–1. Transparency and accountability

#### (a) Findings

(1) 1 building the understanding of and confidence in investments in basic research is essential to public support for sustained, predictable Federal funding;

(2) the Foundation has improved transparency and accountability of the outcomes made through the merit review process, but additional transparency into individual grants is valuable in communicating and assuring the public value of federally funded research; and

(3) the Foundation should commit to transparency and accountability and to clear, consistent public communication regarding the national interest for each Foundation-awarded grant and cooperative agreement.

#### (b) Guidance

#### (1) In general

The Director of the Foundation shall issue and periodically update, as appropriate, policy guidance for both Foundation staff and other Foundation merit review process participants on the importance of transparency and accountability to the outcomes made through the merit review process.

#### (2) Requirements

The guidance under paragraph (1) shall require that each public notice of a Foundation-funded research project justify the expenditure of Federal funds by—

(A) describing how the project—

(i) reflects the statutory mission of the Foundation, as established in the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.); and

(ii) addresses the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts criteria; and

(B) clearly identifying the research goals of the project in a manner that can be easily understood by both technical and non-technical audiences.

(Pub. L. 114–329, title I, §102, Jan. 6, 2017, 130 Stat. 2971.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A)(i), is act May 10, 1950, ch. 171, 64 Stat. 149, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1861 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, and not as part of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 which comprises this chapter.

Section is comprised of section 102 of Pub. L. 114–329. Subsec. (c) of section 102 of Pub. L. 114–329 amended section 1862p–14 of this title.

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

#### Definitions

For definitions of terms used in this section, see section 2 of Pub. L. 114–329, set out as a note under section 1862s of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be preceded by introductory text.
EXHIBIT 32.2

# 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 the Quarterly
Report of TS&B Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report),the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.    
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

| |                                                                                                                             
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | TS&B Holdings, Inc.
BY: /s/ James V. Sadrianna                 
James V Sadrianna, Chief Financial Officer
November 19, 2004
#### § 31.21 Leverage contracts entered into prior to April 13, 1984; subsequent transactions.

Nothing contained in these regulations shall be construed to affect any lawful activities that occurred prior to April 13, 1984. All leverage contracts offered or entered into on or after April 13, 1984 shall be subject to the terms and conditions of these regulations.

[54 FR 41082, Oct. 5, 1989]
§ 270.6d-1 Exemption for certain closed-end investment companies. ( a ) An application under section 6(d) of the Act shall contain the following information: ( 1 ) A brief description of the character of the business and investment policy of the applicant.
( 2 ) The information relied upon by the applicant to satisfy the conditions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 6(d) of the Act.
( 3 ) The number of holders of each class of the applicant's outstanding securities.
( 4 ) An unconsolidated balance sheet as of a date not earlier than the end of the applicant's first fiscal year, together with a schedule specifying the title, the amount, the book value and, if determinable, the market value of each security in the applicant's portfolio.
( 5 ) An unconsolidated profit and loss statement for the applicant's last fiscal year.
( 6 ) A statement of each provision of the act from which the applicant seeks exemption, together with a statement of the facts by reason of which, in the applicant's opinion, such exemption is not contrary to the public interest or inconsistent with the protection of investors.
( b ) There shall be attached to each copy of the application a copy of Form N-8A. The form need not be executed, but it shall be clearly marked on its facing page as an exhibit to the application. The filing of Form N-8A in this manner shall not be construed as the filing of a notification of registration under section 8(a) of the Act.
( c ) The application may contain any additional information which the applicant desires to submit.
[Rule N-6D-1, 5 FR 4346, Nov. 2, 1940]
### §285p–1. Associate Director for Prevention

#### (a) In general

There shall be in the Institute an Associate Director for Prevention who shall be responsible for the full-time coordination and promotion of the programs in the Institute concerning the prevention of mental disorder. The Associate Director shall be appointed by the Director of the Institute from individuals who because of their professional training or expertise are experts in mental disorder and the prevention of such.

#### (b) Report

The Associate Director for Prevention shall prepare for inclusion in the biennial report made under section 284b 1 of this title a description of the prevention activities of the Institute, including a description of the staff and resources allocated to those activities.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §464S, as added Pub. L. 102–321, title I, §124(b), July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 365.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 284b of this title, referred to in subsec. (b), was repealed by Pub. L. 109–482, title I, §104(b)(1)(C), Jan. 15, 2007, 120 Stat. 3693.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1992, with provision for programs providing financial assistance, see section 801(c), (d) of Pub. L. 102–321, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 236 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 71121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26955]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The TAP will be 
discussing issues pertaining to lessoning the burden for individuals. 
Recommendations for IRS systemic changes will be developed.

DATES: The meeting will be held Monday, January 3, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary O'Brien at 1-888-912-1227, or 
206-220-6096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel will be held Monday, January 3, 2005 from 1 p.m. eastern time to 
2 p.m. eastern time via a telephone conference call. If you would like 
to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-
1227 or 206-220-6096, or write to Mary O'Brien, TAP Office, 915 2nd 
Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or you can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. Due to limited conference lines, notification of 
intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be 
made with Mary O'Brien. Ms. O'Brien can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6096.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: December 3, 2004.
Bernard Coston,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 04-26955 Filed 12-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### §§ 1103.161-1103.169 [Reserved]
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

 

I, Rajesh Kalathur, certify that:

 

1.            Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered bythis report on Form 10-K of John Deere Owner Trust 2019-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.            Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.            Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing, and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.            Iam responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conductedin preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects;and

 

5.            Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance withItem 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I havereasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association (as indenture trustee).
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1213 CA 12-00915 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

STILLWATER HYDRO PARTNERS, LP, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STILLWATER HYDRO ASSOCIATES, LLC, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

MELVIN & MELVIN, PLLC, SYRACUSE (ELIZABETH A. GENUNG OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

JOSHUA A. SABO, TROY, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), entered August 15, 2011 in a declaratory judgment action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, and judgment is granted in favor of plaintiff as follows:

It is ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that defendant is not entitled to the use of the escrow funds to pay for the cost of replacing the trash rack cleaner.
Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order denying its motion seeking summary judgment in this declaratory judgment action. We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in denying the motion. The parties entered into an asset purchase agreement (APA) for defendant’s purchase of a hydroelectric plant from plaintiff. The APA included an escrow agreement as security for the performance of the APA. At issue is whether defendant is entitled to the use of the escrow funds of $75,000 to pay for the cost of replacing the trash rack cleaner, which became inoperable within six months after the closing. It is axiomatic that “a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” ( Greenfield v Philles Records , 98 NY2d 562, 569; see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri , 77 NY2d 157, 162). Here, although the parties correctly agree that the APA is unambiguous, they disagree with respect to the “plain meaning of its terms” ( Greenfield , 98 NY2d at 569). Paragraph 3.2 states in relevant part: “ Suitability of Assets: Disclaimer. Subject to matters set forth in Schedule 3.2 , the Purchased Assets . . . are suitable for the purposes for which-2- 1213 CA 12-00915
they have been operated . . . and to Seller’s Knowledge are not currently in need of replacement or material repair” (italicized emphasis added). Schedule 3.2 states in relevant part: “Trash rack cleaner is also wearing out and may need replacement.” We conclude that, by its terms, the APA excludes from the warranty of suitability the matters set forth in schedule 3.2, including the trash rack cleaner at issue.

Entered: November 9, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### In the Matter of Denis Dillon, as District Attorney of Nassau County, New York, Appellant, v Peter Cuomo, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to section 415.00 of the Penal Law to declare the forfeiture of a motor vehicle, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 24, 1976, which, after a hearing, (1) denied petitioner’s application to declare a forfeiture of the vehicle and (2) directed the return of certain moneys to respondent. Order modified, on the facts, by deleting therefrom the provisions denying the application to declare a forfeiture of the vehicle. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The petitioner established by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that the vehicle in question was used in the transportation of gambling records. Latham, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur; Martuscello, J. P., dissents and votes to affirm the order upon the opinion of Mr. Justice Wager at Special Term.
#### Lauren Buckley, Appellant, v Diocese of Rockville Centre et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[715 NYS2d 720]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated June 30, 1999, as (a) granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Diocese of Rockville Centre, Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn, and Brother Thomas Grady which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Diocese of Rockville Centre, (b) granted that branch of the separate motion of the defendants South Huntington Union Free School District and Virginia Upton which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (c) denied that branch of her cross motion which was for an award of costs and sanctions against the defendants Diocese of Rockville Centre, Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn, and Thomas Grady for frivolous motion practice.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, after the defendant Diocese of Rockville Centre (hereinafter the Diocese) made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, no material issue of fact was raised by the plaintiff with regard to whether the Diocese had supervision or control over the defendant St. Anthony’s High School (hereinafter St. Anthony’s) as to be held liable for the alleged acts of sexual harassment by one of St. Anthony’s teachers *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557; *see also, K. I. v New York City Bd. of Educ.,*256 AD2d 189; *Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese,*229 AD2d 159).

Furthermore, the plaintiff’s complaint was properly dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendants South Huntington Union Free School District (hereinafter the school district) and Virginia Upton. There is no basis upon which liability under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 *(see,*20 USC § 1681 [a]) could be imposed upon the school district *(see, Gebser v Lago Vista Independent School Dist,*524 US 274), as the school district was not “deliberately indifferent” to the plaintiff and neither it nor Dr, Upton were a position to institute corrective measures in the private school *(Gebser v Lago Vista Independent School Dist., supra,*at 277).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Deborah J. Limoncelli, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 665]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 27, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

*1067Claimant, a cook, was responsible for serving meals to residents of a health care facility. While she was preparing a meal on December 12, 2004, she failed to follow her employer’s policy of checking the temperature of the food prior to serving it and of recording the temperature in the appropriate log. In fact, she indicated in the log that she did not have time to check the temperature of the food because she was too busy with other tasks. Claimant was discharged as a result and she filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified her from receiving benefits on the ground that she lost her employment due to misconduct. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. An employee’s failure to follow an employer’s reasonable policy which, in turn, has a detrimental effect upon the employer’s interest has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Ochs [Commissioner of Labor],*21 AD3d 1196, 1197 [2005]; *Matter of Ghoulian [Commissioner of Labor],*6 AD3d 908, 908 [2004]). Here, the purpose of the employer’s policy was to ensure that food was served at the proper temperature in accordance with health regulations. It is undisputed that claimant knew of the policy and disregarded it on the date in question. Although testimony was presented at the administrative hearing concerning prior warnings that claimant had received about her work performance, the record does not substantiate her claim that documentation regarding the same was admitted into evidence. Notably, claimant was not precluded from cross-examining the witness who gave such testimony. Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Feters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.