alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Anthony Sfarra,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the Wells FargoCommercial Mortgage Trust 2015-LC22 (the "Exchange Act periodicreports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to

this report, exceptas otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

National CooperativeBank, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as SpecialServicer, National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer, WilmingtonTrust, National Association, as Trustee, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, asTrust Advisor, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as ServicingFunction Participant, National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer for theSomerset Park Apartments Mortgage Loan, Wilmington Trust, National Association,as Trustee for the Somerset Park Apartments Mortgage Loan, PentalphaSurveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor for the Somerset Park Apartments MortgageLoan, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing FunctionParticipant for the Somerset Park Apartments Mortgage Loan, and National TaxSearch, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant for the Somerset Park ApartmentsMortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 19, 2018

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3110 Ankle joint metal/polymer semi-constrained cemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* An ankle joint metal/polymer semi-constrained cemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace an ankle joint. The device limits translation and rotation in one or more planes via the geometry of its articulating surfaces and has no linkage across-the-joint. This generic type of device includes prostheses that have a talar resurfacing component made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and a tibial resurfacing component made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene and is limited to those prostheses intended for use with bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
427 A.2d 1228

#### Commonwealth v. Newland, Appellant.

Argued August 28, 1979.

Peter F. Troglio, for appellant;

James F. Conti, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

*637Before VAN der VOORT, LARSEN and LAVELLE, JJ.*

*

 Justice Rolf Larsen of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and Judge John E. Lavelle of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, are sitting by designation.

Order affirmed.
# C_2014303EN.01004201.xml

| 8.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/42

---

Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság v European Parliament

(Case T-453/14)

2014/C 303/50

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság (Pannonhalma, Hungary) (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul decision MS/sd(IPOL-COM-PETI D (2014) 14486) of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 16 April 2014 to file without further action the petition presented in the Lónyay Mansion in Rusovce (Slovakia) case; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul decision MS/sd(IPOL-COM-PETI D (2014) 14486) of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 16 April 2014 to file without further action the petition presented in the Lónyay Mansion in Rusovce (Slovakia) case;

| — | Order the European Parliament to examine the petition and take all the measures required by law; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to examine the petition and take all the measures required by law;

| — | Order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant argues that the Petitions Committee infringed procedural rules in that no reasons were stated for the contested decision.

In that regard, the applicant points out that, pursuant to Rule [215](8) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, petitions declared inadmissible by the committee are to be filed and the petitioner informed of the decision and the reasons for it. The applicant also states that, in breach of that Rule, the defendant gave no reasons for its view that the subject matter of the petition had no connection with the European Union's fields of activity. The applicant also cites the judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 in Case T-308/07 Tegebauer v Parliament [2011] ECR II-279.

Tegebauer

Parliament

---
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: IRS redesignated the following sections to appear below the undesignated center heading “Regulations Applicable to Certain Bonds Sold Prior to July 8, 1997” and preceding the undesignated center heading “Deductions for Personal Exemptions.” See 62 FR 25507 and 25513, May 9, 1997 for the specific sections involved in the redesignation.

§ 1.408A-7 Reporting. This section sets forth the following questions and answers that relate to the reporting requirements applicable to Roth IRAs: Q-1 . What reporting requirements apply to Roth IRAs?
A-1 . Generally, the reporting requirements applicable to IRAs other than Roth IRAs also apply to Roth IRAs, except that, pursuant to section 408A(d)(3)(D), the trustee of a Roth IRA must include on Forms 1099-R and 5498 additional information as described in the instructions thereto. Any conversion of amounts from an IRA other than a Roth IRA to a Roth IRA is treated as a distribution for which a Form 1099-R must be filed by the trustee maintaining the non-Roth IRA. In addition, the owner of such IRAs must report the conversion by completing Form 8606. In the case of a recharacterization described in § 1.408A-5 A-1, IRA owners must report such transactions in the manner prescribed in the instructions to the applicable Federal tax forms.
Q-2 . Can a trustee rely on reasonable representations of a Roth IRA contributor or distributee for purposes of fulfilling reporting obligations?
A-2 . A trustee maintaining a Roth IRA is permitted to rely on reasonable representations of a Roth IRA contributor or distributee for purposes of fulfilling reporting obligations.
[T.D. 8816, 64 FR 5610, Feb. 4, 1999]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1751-1752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-493]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-815]


Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey: Extension of 
Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-1121 and (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    At the request of interested parties, on June 24, 2009, the 
Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of 
this antidumping duty administrative review. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests 
for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 30052, August 25, 2009. The review covers 
the period January 30, 2008, through April 30, 2009. The preliminary 
results for this administrative review is currently due no later than 
January 31, 2010.

Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), requires the Department to complete the

[[Page 1752]]

preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after 
the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is 
requested. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review 
within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 
Department to extend the 245 day time period for the preliminary 
results up to 365 days.
    The Department has determined it is not practicable to complete 
this review within the statutory time limit because we require 
additional time to collect and analyze information needed for our 
preliminary results. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time 
limits for completion of the preliminary results of this administrative 
review until no later than May 31, 2010, which is 365 days from the 
last day of the anniversary month of these orders. We intend to issue 
the final results in this review no later than 120 days after 
publication of the preliminary results.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 7, 2010.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-493 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
# C_2014315EN.01004001.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/40

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 4 July 2014 — Colena AG v Karnevalservice Bastian GmbH

(Case C-321/14)

2014/C 315/64

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Krefeld

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Colena AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Karnevalservice Bastian GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1) be interpreted as meaning that a product which does not come under Regulation No 1223/2009 must comply with the requirements of that regulation solely by reason of a statement on the outer packaging that the product is a ‘cosmetic eye accessory which is subject to the EU cosmetics directive’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1) be interpreted as meaning that a product which does not come under Regulation No 1223/2009 must comply with the requirements of that regulation solely by reason of a statement on the outer packaging that the product is a ‘cosmetic eye accessory which is subject to the EU cosmetics directive’?

1

| 2. | Must Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products be interpreted as meaning that so-called themed contact lenses, which do not have any corrective function, come within the scope of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products be interpreted as meaning that so-called themed contact lenses, which do not have any corrective function, come within the scope of that regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59.

1

---
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Increase in Permanent Debt Limitation

              																	United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Finance, 1815-					 and 	Eighty-Fifth Congress, 1957-1959. 						*Increase in Permanent Debt Limitation : Hearing Before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, Eighty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 13580, August 15, 1958*,												Washington: 								U.S. Government Printing Office, 										August 15, 1958,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/780,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          19,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     48,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,100
<PP&E>                                         476,300
<DEPRECIATION>                               (700,700)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 588,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,900
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,800
<COMMON>                                           900
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   588,200
<SALES>                                        111,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               111,600
<CGS>                                           73,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,400<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,100)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
<FN>
<F1>net of interest income of $0.5 million
</FN>


</TABLE>
Honorable Neil J. Gilligan 

County Auditor 

Uvalde County 

Dvalda, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion Number O-2923 

Be: Time for holding road 

bond elections. 

Ilb have your letter of Novauber 23, which reads as followsr 

"Will you kindly inform me whether or not Article 704. as amended, Vernon's ¬ated Civil Statutes, 

providing bond elections shall be held not less than 

15 nor more than 30 days from the date or order of 

election, prevails wbr Article 2950 wherein it is 

stated that the munty Judge shall oause notice of 

election to be posted or published for thirty days? 

I pm interested in P county-wide bond ale&ion - - 

road bond." 

We first aall your attention to ths fact that Title 22, 

Chapter 3, hrticles 752a, et seq., constitute the staturoty authority for 

the issuance of road bonds. Article 752f-2 reads as follows: 

"The Conrmissioners' Court shall determine the 

time and plaoe or places of holding suoh election, 

and ths date of such election sh4.l not be less than 

thirty days from the date of making the order of 

election." 

This artihle refers to the election contemplated by Article 

752f, wherein it is provided that if the proposed issue of bonds and levy 

of taxes is for tt7 e&ire county, notice of election shall begiven by publioation In a newsgaper published,in such county for three successive weeks, 

if there be one, and futiher provides that in addition thereto for P period 

of three meks prior to said election, notice shall be posted by the county 

olerk & four public plaoes in the county, one of whioh shall ba at the 

oounty courthouse door. 
. 

Honorable Neil J. Gilligan - Page 2 (O-2923) 

followsr 

1c, call your attention to Article 752g, which reads as 

"The manner of holding such sleotion and canvassing and making returns thereof shall be governed by the 

general laws of this State when not in confliot with the provisions of this Act." 

We ara of the opinion that the issuanoe of road bonds and the 

manner of voting same must be in rccordanoe with the above quoted articles, and that &tic10 704, as amended, and 2950, referred to in your 

latter, have no application in the isauanoe of such bonds. 

You PI-~, therefore, advised that in any road bond election, 

notice thereof shall bs posted for P period of not less than thirty 

days from the date, of the order of election. 

Trusting that the foregoing satisfactorily answers your inquip, we *rb 

Yours very truly 

CEC-srEGW 

APFROVED DEC 17, 1940 

/s/ Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEYGEIWRALOFTEXAS 

ATTORNEY GIiXERAL OF TE#S 

By /*/ Cl~rsncs E. Crowa 

Clarence E. Crowe 

Assistant 

Approved Opinion Committee 

By BKB Chairman
#### Suburban Development Corporation *v.*Town Council of the Town of West Hartford

Argued January 2

decided January 2, 1968

*Michael E. Grossmann,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Samuel S. Goldstein,*corporation counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael E. Hofmann, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Itec
Environmental Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I, are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: February 6, 2004.

/s/ Michael E. Hofmann
----------------------
Michael E. Hofmann
Chief Financial Office