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

I, Richard Simpson, certify that:


1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC33 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);


2.	Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;


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


4.	Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and


5.	All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed 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 have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; LNR Partners, LLC; Situs Holdings, LLC; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; CoreLogic Solutions, LLC; Computershare Trust Company, National Association; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC and Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC.

Date:	March 31, 2023

/s/ Richard Simpson ___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

CGCMT 2015-GC33 Certifications

---
# C_2015056EN.01002601.xml

| 16.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/26

---

Action brought on 17 December 2014 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP Metro (REAL HAND COOKED)

(Case T-816/14)

(2015/C 056/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tayto Group Ltd (Craigavon, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Kunze, Solicitor, and G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘REAL HAND COOKED’ — Community trade mark application No 9 0 62  688

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 in Case R 842/2013-4

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 64, 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 64, 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0258 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-065-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 2013-0051

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.5575 Powered external limb overload warning device. ( a ) *Identification.* A powered external limb overload warning device is a device intended for medical purposes to warn a patient of an overload or an underload in the amount of pressure placed on a leg.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 890.9.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 84 FR 71818, Dec. 30, 2019]
§ 1.1363-1 Effect of election on corporation. ( a ) *Exemption of corporation from income tax* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Except as provided in this paragraph (a), a small business corporation that makes a valid election under section 1362(a) is exempt from the taxes imposed by chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to taxable years of the corporation for which the election is in effect.
( 2 ) *Corporate level taxes.* An S corporation is not exempt from the tax imposed by section 1374 (relating to the tax imposed on certain built-in gains), or section 1375 (relating to the tax on excess passive investment income). See also section 1363(d) (relating to the recapture of LIFO benefits) for the rules regarding the payment by an S corporation of LIFO recapture amounts.
( b ) *Computation of corporate taxable income.* The taxable income of an S corporation is computed as described in section 1363(b).
( c ) *Elections of the S corporation* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Any elections (other than those described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section) affecting the computation of items derived from an S corporation are made by the corporation. For example, elections of methods of accounting, of computing depreciation, of treating soil and water conservation expenditures, and the option to deduct as expenses intangible drilling and development costs, are made by the corporation and not by the shareholders separately. All corporate elections are applicable to all shareholders.
( 2 ) *Exceptions.* ( i ) Each shareholder's pro rata share of expenses described in section 617 paid or accrued by the S corporation is treated according to the shareholder's method of treating those expenses, notwithstanding the treatment of the expenses by the corporation.
( ii ) Each shareholder may elect to amortize that shareholder's pro rata share of any qualified expenditure described in section 59(e) paid or accrued by the S corporation.
( iii ) Each shareholder's pro rata share of taxes described in section 901 paid or accrued by the S corporation to foreign countries or possessions of the United States (according to its method of treating those taxes) is treated according to the shareholder's method of treating those taxes, and each shareholder may elect to use the total amount either as a credit against tax or as a deduction from income.
( d ) *Effective date.* This section applies to taxable years of corporations beginning after December 31, 1992. For taxable years to which this section does not apply, corporations and shareholders subject to the provisions of section 1363 must take reasonable return positions taking into consideration the statute, its legislative history and these regulations. See Notice 92-56, 1992-49 I.R.B. (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b ) of this chapter), for additional guidance regarding reasonable return positions for taxable years to which this section does not apply.
[T.D. 8449, 57 FR 55456, Nov. 25, 1992]
# C_2016270EN.01004302.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/43

---

Order of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — REWE-Zentral v EUIPO — Vicente Gandía Pla (MY PLANET)

(Case T-362/14) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 270/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and A. Wagner, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: I. P. Harrington and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Vicente Gandía Pla, SA (Chiva, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2014 (Case R 201/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Vicente Gandía PIa SA and REWE-Zentral AG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | REWE-Zentral AG is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

REWE-Zentral AG is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

1

---
38735.

#### WHIDBY v. FEAGINS.

Nichols, Judge.

The decision in this case is controlled adversely to the contentions of the plaintiff in error by the decision in the case of *Braziel v. Hunter,*ante.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Judges concur.*

Felton, C. J., and Bell, Hall and Eberhardt, JJ., concurring specially. We concur in the judgment in this case for the sole reason that we are bound by the ruling in the *Braziel*case.

*858Decided April 10, 1961

Rehearing denied June 15, 1961.

*Joseph E. Cheeley, Smith, Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hancock, James B. Hiers, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Merritt & Pruitt, Glyndon C. Pruitt,*contra.
# C_2015311EN.01004601.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/46

---

Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)

(Case T-553/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark Extra - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2015/C 311/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 218/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Extra as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.

1

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00531-CV

JUAN DAVID ORTIZ, INDIVIDUALLY; AND MARIA ACIANA SAENZ, INDIVIDUALLY

v.

RICARDO ORTIZ AND YOLANDA ORTIZ ALANIZ

On Appeal from the

93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-6421-13-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 10, 2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6106

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY VONN HARRIS, a/k/a Anthony Vonne Harris,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:10-cr-00289-TDS-1; 1:13-cv-00232-TDS-JEP)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Vonn Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, 

Harry L. Hobgood, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Vonn Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Harris has not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny 

 * Specifically, the district court’s dispositive conclusion

— that our decision in United States v. Mungro, 754 F.3d 267 

(4th Cir. 2014), foreclosed Harris’ argument that the Supreme 

(Continued)
3

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 

Court’s holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 

(2015), invalidated his armed career criminal designation — is 

not debatable.
§ 660.50 Anti-Human Globulin. ( a ) *Proper name and definition.* The proper name of this product shall be Anti-Human Globulin which shall consist of one or more antiglobulin antibodies identified in § 660.55(a)(4).
( b ) *Source.* The source of this product shall be either serum from animals immunized with one or more human serum globulins or protein-rich fluids derived from stable immunoglobulin-secreting cell lines maintained either in tissue cultures or in secondary hosts.
[50 FR 5579, Feb. 11, 1985, as amended at 65 FR 77499, Dec. 12, 2000; 81 FR 38928, June 15, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      19,559,461
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                     906,769,253
<DEPRECIATION>                              68,079,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             867,325,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                263,475,613
<COMMON>                                   387,460,456
<OTHER-SE>                                (64,569,880)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               867,325,731
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            86,264,514
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               54,854,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,876,360
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,859,813
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         15,859,813<F2>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                15,859,813
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
<FN>
<F1>Current Assets and Current Liabilities are not separated to conform with
industry standards.
<F2>Income is from rental income. There are no Sales or Cost of Goods sold.
</FN>



</TABLE>
§ 1.165-4 Decline in value of stock. ( a ) *Deduction disallowed.* No deduction shall be allowed under section 165(a) solely on account of a decline in the value of stock owned by the taxpayer when the decline is due to a fluctuation in the market price of the stock or to other similar cause. A mere shrinkage in the value of stock owned by the taxpayer, even though extensive, does not give rise to a deduction under section 165(a) if the stock has any recognizable value on the date claimed as the date of loss. No loss for a decline in the value of stock owned by the taxpayer shall be allowed as a deduction under section 165(a) except insofar as the loss is recognized under § 1.1002-1 upon the sale or exchange of the stock and except as otherwise provided in § 1.165-5 with respect to stock which becomes worthless during the taxable year.
( b ) *Stock owned by banks.* ( 1 ) In the regulation of banks and certain other corporations, Federal and State authorities may require that stock owned by such organizations be charged off as worthless or written down to a nominal value. If, in any such case, this requirement is premised upon the worthlessness of the stock, the charging off or writing down will be considered prima facie evidence of worthlessness for purposes of section 165(a); but, if the charging off or writing down is due to a fluctuation in the market price of the stock or if no reasonable attempt to determine the worthlessness of the stock has been made, then no deduction shall be allowed under section 165(a) for the amount so charged off or written down.
( 2 ) This paragraph shall not be construed, however, to permit a deduction under section 165(a) unless the stock owned by the bank or other corporation actually becomes worthless in the taxable year. Such a taxpayer owning stock which becomes worthless during the taxable year is not precluded from deducting the loss under section 165(a) merely because, in obedience to the specific orders or general policy of such supervisory authorities, the value of the stock is written down to a nominal amount instead of being charged off completely.
( c ) *Application to inventories.* This section does not apply to a decline in the value of corporate stock reflected in inventories required to be taken by a dealer in securities under section 471. See § 1.471-5.
( d ) *Definition.* As used in this section, the term “stock” means a share of stock in a corporation or a right to subscribe for, or to receive, a share of stock in a corporation.
Dolan Chemical Laboratory 4001 Bixby Road Groveport, OH 43125 T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221 F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168 http://aepenv/labs 

### Water Analysis Form REP-702 Rev. 0, 4/2012



### Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 8/14/2013 Sample Number: 133202-001 Date Collected:08/07/2013 Date Received:8/7/2013 

### 1st Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 193 0.50 DPC EPA 200.8 0.20 08/13/2013 10:09 

### Sample Number: 133202-002 Date Collected: 08/07/2013 Date Received:8/7/2013 

### 2nd Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 14.1 0.50 DPC EPA 200.8 0.20 08/13/2013 10:14 

### Sample Number: 133202-003 Date Collected:08/07/2013 Date Received:8/7/2013 

## Bioreactor Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 1.0 0.50 DPC EPA 200.8 0.20 08/13/2013 10:19

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224 Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 133202 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4730 Surgical skin degreaser or adhesive tape solvent. ( a ) *Identification.* A surgical skin degreaser or an adhesive tape solvent is a device that consists of a liquid such as 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane; 1,1,1-trichloroethane; and 1,1,1-trichloroethane with mineral spirits intended to be used to dissolve surface skin oil or adhesive tape.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 878.9.
[53 FR 23872, June 24, 1988, as amended at 59 FR 63010, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38803, July 25, 2001]