alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (logo) Rialto 

CAPITAL |  

  |
|-------------------------|----------------|

 

 

 

 

 

 

2014 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)

 

                 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of  March 1, 2013  by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as General Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, NCB, FSB as NCB Master Servicer, NCB, FSB as Co-op Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor and U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee relating to the WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2013-C12, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-C12  **(WFRBS 2013-C12)**

 

                

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.        All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.        A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

 

 

Certified by:  /s/  Adam Singer                                                                                Date:  March 5, 2015

       Adam Singer, Managing Director
#### § 470.16 Cost sharing and funds from other sources.

Proposers are encouraged to offer to share in the costs of their proposed projects or to arrange that other entities provide cost sharing on their behalf. Regional Program Managers, with the consent of the proposer, may work with States, local governments or other entities to obtain supplemental funding.
#### HILLENBERG v. BENDICK et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by David Hillenberg against Louis G. Bendick and Harris Horowitz.

No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs, on the authority of Havana City Railway Co. v. Ceballos, 49 App. Div. 421, 63 N. Y. Supp. 422. The rule in Mellen v. Athens Hotel Co., 149 App. Div. 534, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1079, may not be applied to the case under review.
Case 2:06-cv-00791-MEF-SRW Document 1 Filed 09/03/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00791-MEF-SRW Document 1 Filed 09/03/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00791-MEF-SRW Document 1 Filed 09/03/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00791-MEF-SRW Document 1 Filed 09/03/2006 Page 4 of 4
#### § 710.23 Extensions of time by the manager.

The Manager may, for good cause shown, at the written request of the individual, extend the time for filing a written request for a hearing, and/or the time for filing a written answer to the matters contained in the notification letter. The Manager shall notify the Director, in writing, when such extensions have been approved.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                         FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                  46,092,000
<SECURITIES>                           132,188,000
<RECEIVABLES>                           13,217,000
<ALLOWANCES>                             2,711,000
<INVENTORY>                             10,687,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       201,371,000
<PP&E>                                  28,749,000
<DEPRECIATION>                          20,161,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         222,213,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   19,761,000
<BONDS>                                 48,676,000
<COMMON>                                 3,469,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      1
<OTHER-SE>                             150,306,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           222,213,000
<SALES>                                 10,048,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        10,048,000
<CGS>                                    8,193,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            8,193,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        14,962,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         270,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (12,837,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (12,837,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                           (12,837,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (1.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (1.15)



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Fortunato Paturso, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered May 15, 1969, convicting him of violating the Public Health Law with respect to narcotic drugs, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from 7 to 10 years. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, the proof presented an issue as to whether defendant was a seller of the heroin or merely the buyer’s accomplice or agent in purchasing this narcotic. We believe the jury was warranted in finding that the proof established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was one of the sellers and was beneficially interested in the proceeds of the sale (cf. *People*v. *Wright,*20 A D 2d 652, affd. 15 N Y 2d 555; *People*v. *Pulliam,*28 A D 2d 786). Christ, P. J., Latham, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
#### ALEXANDER et al. v. TRENT TILE CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Elmer E. Alexander and others against the Trent Tile Company.

No opinion. Motion granted, unless appellant complies with terms stated in order. Order filed. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1103.
PGI 208.7403 Acquisition procedures.

(1) After requirements are determined, the requiring official shall review the information at the ESI

website to determine if the required commercial software or related services are available from DoD

inventory (e.g., Golden Disks and DoD-wide software maintenance agreements). If the software or

services are available, the requiring official shall fulfill the requirement from the DoD inventory.

(2) If the required commercial software or related services are not in the DoD inventory, and not on

an ESA, the contracting officer or requiring official may fulfill the requirement by other means.

Existing ESAs are listed on the ESI website.

(3) If the commercial software or related services are on an ESA, the contracting officer or requiring

official shall review the terms and conditions and prices in accordance with otherwise applicable

source selection requirements.

(4) If an ESA’s terms and conditions and prices represent the best value to the Government, the

contracting officer or requiring official shall fulfill the requirement for software or services through

the ESA.

(5) If existing ESAs do not represent the best value to the Government, the software product

manager (SPM) shall be given an opportunity to provide the same or a better value to the

Government under the ESAs before the contracting officer or requiring official may continue with

alternate acquisition methods.

(i) The contracting officer or requiring official shall notify the SPM of specific concerns about

existing ESA terms and conditions or prices through the ESI webpage.

(ii) The SPM shall consider adjusting, within the scope of the ESA, terms and conditions or prices to

provide the best value to the customer.

(A) Within 3 working days, the SPM shall—

(1) Update the ESA;

(2) Provide an estimated date by which the update will be accomplished; or

(3) Inform the contracting officer or requiring official that no change will be made to the ESA.

(B) If the SPM informs the contracting officer or requiring official that no change will be made to the

ESA terms and conditions or prices, the contracting officer or requiring official may fulfill the

requirement by other means.

(C) If the SPM does not respond within 3 working days or does not plan to adjust the ESA within 90

days, the contracting officer or requiring official may fulfill the requirement by other means.

(iii) A management official designated by the department or agency may waive the requirement to

obtain commercial software or related services through an ESA after the steps in paragraphs (5)(i)

and (5)(ii)(A) of this section are complete. The rationale for use of an alternate source shall be

included in the waiver request and shall be provided to the SPM.

Parent topic: PGI 208.74 -ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE AGREEMENTS
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-21 Daily Surface Meteorological DataThe Boreal Ecosystem-Atmospheric Study (BOREAS) TE-21 (Terrestrial Ecology) team collected data sets in support of its efforts to characterize and interpret information on the meteorology of boreal forest areas. Daily meteorological data were derived from half-hourly BOREAS tower flux (TF) and Automatic Meteorological Station (AMS) mesonet measurements collected in the Southern and Northern Study Areas (SSA and NSA) for the period of 01 Jan 1994 until 31 Dec 1994. The data were stored in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010005251Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsKimball, John*(Montana Univ. Missoula, MT United States)*Hall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Papagno, Andrea*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:209891/VOL185NASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL185Rept-2000-03136-0/VOL185Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010005251.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
PGI 249.109-7 Settlement by determination.

(1) Use a Standard Form 30 (SF 30), Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, to settle a

convenience termination by determination—

(i) When the contractor has lost its right of appeal because it failed to submit a timely settlement

proposal; and

(ii) To confirm the determination when the contractor does not appeal the termination contracting

officer's decision.

(2) The effective date of the SF 30 shall be the same as the date of the letter of determination. Do

not assign a supplementary procurement instrument identification number to the letter of

determination. Send a copy of the SF 30 to the contractor by certified mail return receipt requested.

Parent topic: PGI 249.109 Settlement agreements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
J.A.M., INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR ITS QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000765449
<NAME> J.A.M., INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,857
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  351,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,797
<INVENTORY>                                      4,361
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               375,069
<PP&E>                                         932,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                 591,675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 728,379
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          697,027
<BONDS>                                        136,540<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       152,745
<OTHER-SE>                                   (257,933)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   728,379
<SALES>                                      1,774,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,774,084
<CGS>                                        1,046,230
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,655,985
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 75,619
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             75,619
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    75,619
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
<FN>
<F1>Long-term liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7276

RICKY A. PIERCE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RUSSELL GINN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-95-1033-5-F)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 25, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky A. Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Pierce v. Ginn, No. CA-95-1033-5-F (E.D.N.C.

Aug. 2, 1996). Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel are

denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 719.44 What categories of costs require advance approval? ( a ) To be considered for reimbursement, costs incurred by retained legal counsel for the following require advance written approval from Department Counsel or the submission of subsequent specific justification to Department Counsel when circumstances out of the contractor's control make advance approval unobtainable: ( 1 ) Computers or general application software, or non-routine computerized databases, if they are specifically created for a particular matter. For costs associated with the creation and use of computerized databases, contractors and retained legal counsel must ensure that the creation and use of computerized databases is necessary and cost-effective. Use of databases originally created by the Department or its contractors for other purposes, but that can be used to assist a contractor or retained legal counsel in connection with a particular matter, should be considered. Contractors and retained legal counsel must ensure that DOE is provided the discretion to obtain unlimited access to and dominion over any computers or general application software, or non-routine computerized databases specifically created for a particular matter;
( 2 ) Secretarial and support services, word processing, or temporary support personnel;
( 3 ) Attendance by more than one attorney at a deposition, court hearing or interview;
( 4 ) Expert witnesses and consultants;
( 5 ) Trade publications, books, treatises, background materials, and other similar documents;
( 6 ) Professional or educational seminars and conferences;
( 7 ) Preparation of bills or time spent responding to questions about bills from either the Department or the contractor;
( 8 ) Food and beverages when the attorney or consultant is not on travel status and away from the home office;
( 9 ) Pro hac vice admissions; and
( 10 ) Time charged for law students' or interns' services.
( b ) Requests for fee increases by retained legal counsel, other than those under contract directly with the Department, must be sent in writing to the contractor, who will review the request for reasonableness. If the contractor determines the request is reasonable, the contractor must seek approval for the increase from Department Counsel before it authorizes any increase. Contractors should attempt to lock in rates for partners, associates and paralegals for at least a two year period.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United States Court of Appeals

**For the First Circuit**

No. 96-2262 OTOKI GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. GIBRALTAR, P.R., INC., ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Daniel R. Domínguez, U.S. District Judge ]
Before Torruella, Circuit Judge , Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge , and Lipez, Circuit Judge .

Jose R. Garcia Perez, Esq. and Bufete Bennazar, C.S.P. on brief for appellant.

July 23, 2001Per Curiam . Otoki Group, Inc. (“Otoki”) appeals from the

district court’s order dismissing its complaint for failure to comply with a court order. Otoki argues on appeal that the district court erred in not remanding its case to the Commonwealth court in Puerto Rico, because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over its case. Otoki further argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint. Adistrict court has inherent authority to manage its docket and may impose sanctions when it finds that its process has been abused even in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. Cf. Unanue-Casal v. Unanue-Casal , 898 F.2d 839, 841 (1 st Cir. 1990) (imposing Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 sanctions after dismissing a petition for removal to federal court). Thus, we decline to decide whet her the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, because, in the present circumstances where appellant has not shown that filing a new action in Commonwealth court is barred by the statute of limitations, see 31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 5303, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Otoki’s complaint without prejudice as a sanction for Otoki’s failure to comply with the district court’s order that Otoki file a status report. See John’s Insulation, Inc. v. L. Addison and Associates, Inc. , 156 F.3d 101, 108 (1 st Cir. 1998). Accordingly, appellant’s motion requesting adjudication on itsbrief without oral argument, pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 34(f) is

granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed .
# EUR-Lex - 31978R3131 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31978R3131

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3131/78 of 28 December 1978 on the use of tendering to fix levies in the olive oil sector **

*
Official Journal L 370 , 30/12/1978 P. 0060 - 0061 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 10 P. 0157 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 23 P. 0241 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 10 P. 0157 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 15 P. 0105 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 15 P. 0105 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3131/78 of 28 December 1978 on the use of tendering to fix levies in the olive oil sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the common organization of the market in oils and fats (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1562/78 (2),

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2749/78 of 23 November 1978 on trade in oils and fats between the Community and Greece (3),

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2751/78 of 23 November 1978 laying down general rules for fixing the import levy on olive oil by tender (4), and in particular Article 1 (1) thereof,

Whereas the present situation of the world and Greek markets in olive oil is characterized by a lack of clarity which is preventing the Commission from accurately discerning the real trend of these markets and consequently from correctly fixing the import levies;

whereas, as the conditions specified in Article 6 (1) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC and in Article 5 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2749/78 are met, the procedure for fixing the levies in question by tender should immediately be used,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The levies on imports from third countries and from Greece of the products listed in the Annex shall be fixed by tender.

Article 2

The minimum levies shall be fixed for the first time so that they can enter into force on 1 January 1979.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1979.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 December 1978.

For the Commission

Finn GUNDELACH

Vice-President (1)OJ No 172, 30.9.1966, p. 3025/66. (2)OJ No L 185, 7.7.1978, p. 1. (3)OJ No L 331, 28.11.1978, p. 1. (4)OJ No L 331, 28.11.1978, p. 6.

ANNEX Products subject to import levies fixed as specified in Article 16 of Regulation No 136/66/EEC and Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 2749/78

>PIC FILE= "T0014375">