alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 28, 2018

No. 04-17-00338-CV

Travis CROW, Britt A. Crow, Laurian Crow 

Edison, and Karen A. Kraft,

Appellants

v.

Heddie Knappick LOOKADOO, Lisa Knappick Lucas, Mary Brown,

Margaret Brown Nugent, Charles Brown, Joseph Gallagher,

Josephine Brown Noll, Pamela Gallagher Palmer, and Irene B. Zoeller,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-10-00188-CVL

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
ABMet Experience List

Updated: July 2015

Full Scale Plants

Plant Application Startup Year Design Flow

Mine Site 1, SD, USA Mining (gold) 2000 300 gpm

Mine Site 2, SD, USA Mining (gold) 2002 300 gpm

Mine Site 3, SD, USA Mining (gold) 2002 300 gpm

Mine site 4, MT, USA Mining (gold) 2003 300 gpm

Mine Site 5, ON, Canada Mining (gold) 2004 250 gpm

Duke Energy Roxboro, NC, USA Power (FGD) 2008 1400 gpm

Duke Energy Belews Creek, NC, USA Power (FGD) 2008 640 gpm

Duke Energy Mayo Station, NC, USA Power (FGD) 2009 260 gpm

Duke Energy Allen Station NC, USA Power (FGD) 2009 440 gpm

AEP Mountaineer, WV, USA Power (FGD + ash leachate) 2011 600 gpm

Power Plant, AR, USA Power (Ash Leachate) Q4-2015 25 gpm

Groundwater Demo, CA, USA Groundwater Q2-2014 100 gpm

Umicore, Antwerp, Belgium Precious metal recycling Q1-2014 1012 gpm

Anglo American (Trend Mine), BC, 

Canada

Mining (coal) Q3-2014 380 gpm
ABMet Experience List

Updated: July 2015

Commercial Pilot Demonstrations

Client Application Year

Coal-Fired Power Plant – NC, USA FGD WW treatment 2007

Coal-Fired Power Plant – NC, USA FGD WW treatment 2007

Coal Mine – WV, USA Mining waters treatment 2008

Precious Metal Refinery - Belgium Process WW treatment 2008

Phosphate Mine – ID, USA Mining waters treatment 2008

Coal Mine – WV, USA Mining waters treatment 2008

Coal-Fired Power Plant – WV, USA FGD WW treatment 2008

Coal-Fired Power Plant – Belgium FGD wastewater 2009

Phosphate Mine – ID, USA Mining waters treatment 2009

Municipality/Government – CA, USA Groundwater treatment 2010

Coal Mine – WV, USA Mining waters treatment 2011

Coal Mine – WV, USA Mining waters treatment 2012

Coal Mine - BC, Canada Mining waters treatment 2012

Cement Quarry - CA, USA Mining waters treatment 2012-2013

Coal-Fired Power Plant – IN, USA FGD WW treatment 2013

Coal-Fired Power Plant, SC, USA FGD WW treatment 2013-2014
ABMet Experience List

Updated: July 2015

Commercial Pilot Demonstrations – con’t

Client Application Year

Coal Mine - MI, USA Mining waters treatment 2014

Phosphate Mine - ID, USA Mining waters treatment 2014

Coal Mine - BC, Canada Mining waters treatment 2014

Coal-Fired Power Plant – GA, USA FGD WW treatment 2014-present

Coal Mine - BC, Canada Mining waters treatment 2014-present
Exhibit 31

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 Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC and Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC.

 

Date:March 30, 2020

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

 

CGCMT 2015-GC33 Certifications
# C_2014261EN.01003301.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/33

---

Action brought on 28 May 2014 — August Storck v OHIM — Chiquita Brands (Fruitfuls)

(Case T-367/14)

2014/C 261/57

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rohr, A.-C. Richter, P. Goldenbaum and T. Melchert, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chiquita Brands LLC (Charlotte, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 in Case R 1580/2013-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 in Case R 1580/2013-5;

| — | Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant, and, should Chiquita Brands LLC intervene in the proceedings, order Chiquita Brands LLC to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant, and, should Chiquita Brands LLC intervene in the proceedings, order Chiquita Brands LLC to pay its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘Fruitfuls’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 5 014 519

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Chiquita Brands LLC

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The trade mark was revoked

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
§ 876.1500 Endoscope and accessories. ( a ) *Identification.* An endoscope and accessories is a device used to provide access, illumination, and allow observation or manipulation of body cavities, hollow organs, and canals. The device consists of various rigid or flexible instruments that are inserted into body spaces and may include an optical system for conveying an image to the user's eye and their accessories may assist in gaining access or increase the versatility and augment the capabilities of the devices. Examples of devices that are within this generic type of device include cleaning accessories for endoscopes, photographic accessories for endoscopes, nonpowered anoscopes, binolcular attachments for endoscopes, pocket battery boxes, flexible or rigid choledochoscopes, colonoscopes, diagnostic cystoscopes, cystourethroscopes, enteroscopes, esophagogastroduodenoscopes, rigid esophagoscopes, fiberoptic illuminators for endoscopes, incandescent endoscope lamps, biliary pancreatoscopes, proctoscopes, resectoscopes, nephroscopes, sigmoidoscopes, ureteroscopes, urethroscopes, endomagnetic retrievers, cytology brushes for endoscopes, and lubricating jelly for transurethral surgical instruments. This section does not apply to endoscopes that have specialized uses in other medical specialty areas and that are covered by classification regulations in other parts of the device classification regulations.
( b ) *Classification* — ( 1 ) *Class II (special controls).* The device, when it is an endoscope disinfectant basin, which consists solely of a container that holds disinfectant and endoscopes and accessories; an endoscopic magnetic retriever intended for single use; sterile scissors for cystoscope intended for single use; a disposable, non-powered endoscopic grasping/cutting instrument intended for single use; a diagnostic incandescent light source; a fiberoptic photographic light source; a routine fiberoptic light source; an endoscopic sponge carrier; a xenon arc endoscope light source; an endoscope transformer; an LED light source; or a gastroenterology-urology endoscopic guidewire, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 876.9.
( 2 ) Class I for the photographic accessories for endoscope, miscellaneous bulb adapter for endoscope, binocular attachment for endoscope, eyepiece attachment for prescription lens, teaching attachment, inflation bulb, measuring device for panendoscope, photographic equipment for physiologic function monitor, special lens instrument for endoscope, smoke removal tube, rechargeable battery box, pocket battery box, bite block for endoscope, and cleaning brush for endoscope. The devices subject to this paragraph (b)(2) are exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 876.9.
[48 FR 53023, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 1122, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38801, July 25, 2001; 83 FR 25914, June 5, 2018; 84 FR 71813, Dec. 30, 2019]
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.13
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
EXPENSE SUPPORT AND CONDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT


This Second Amendment to the Expense Support and Conditional Reimbursement Agreement (this “Second Amendment”) is made as of March 23, 2017 by and between Griffin-Benefit Street Partners BDC Corp., a Maryland Corporation (the “Company”), and Griffin Capital BDC Advisor, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Adviser”).


WHEREAS, the Company and the Adviser entered into that certain Expense Support and Conditional Reimbursement Agreement dated as of March 25, 2015 (the “Expense Support Agreement”), pursuant to which, among other things, the Adviser agreed to reimburse the Company for operating expenses in an amount sufficient to meet the Company’s Operating Expense Objective and/or Distribution Objective (as defined in the Expense Support Agreement) until March 25, 2016, or sooner as provided by the Expense Support Agreement;


WHEREAS, the parties amended the Expense Support Agreement on March 23, 2016 (the “First Amendment”) to, among other things, include certain additional conditions for reimbursement of expenses to the Adviser, and to extend the term of such agreement until March 23, 2017;


WHEREAS, Griffin Capital Company, LLC, the Adviser, and Benefit Street Partners L.L.C. (“Benefit Street”) entered into a letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”), dated as of March 6, 2017, which Letter Agreement revises the economic terms between such parties;


WHEREAS, under the terms of the Letter Agreement, Benefit Street will no longer have any obligation to share in any of the Advisers expenses or distribution support payment obligations under the Expense Support Agreement; 
    
WHEREAS, the Company and the Adviser have determined that it is appropriate and in the best interests of the Company to further amend the Expense Support Agreement as set forth herein;


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual agreements herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged), the parties hereto agree as follows:


		
	1.
	The Company and the Adviser hereby agree to extend the Expense Support Agreement for one additional year from the date hereof.








[Signature Page Follows]











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Second Amendment to be signed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, as of the day and year first above written.


	
		
	GRIFFIN CAPITAL BDC ADVISOR, LLC

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Joseph E. Miller

	Name:
	Joseph E. Miller

	Title:
	Chief Financial Officer






	
		
	GRIFFIN-BENEFIT STREET PARTNERS BDC CORP.

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ David C. Rupert

	Name:
	David C. Rupert

	Title:
	Chief Executive Officer
### High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) | High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge | OPPT | US EPA

http://iaspub.epa.gov/hpvis/ServSubmissionPrint [6/15/2011 10:56:37 AM] You are here: EPA Home Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances Pollution Prevention & Toxics High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) Submission Report 

# High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS)

Contact Us 

### Search: All EPA This Area



# Submission Report

Submission Information

Submission ID : 25419495 Submission Name : 68131135 - Naphthenic acids, reaction products with diethylenetriamine
AR Number :



## Chemical Information

CAS Number : 68131- 13-5 Ninth Collective Index Name : Naphthenic acids, reaction products with diethylenetriamine



## Submitter Information

Submitter's Name : Orphan
Address : City : State : VA
ZIP/Postal Code : Country : Type of Submitter : Company 

## Technical Point of Contact Information

Technical Point of Contact : Title : Phone Number : Fax Number : E-Mail Address : 

## Additional Technical Point of Contact Information

Technical Point of Contact : Title : Phone Number : Fax Number : E-Mail Address :


## Sponsor Information Sponsor's Name : Orphan Chemical
Address : City : State : VA
ZIP/Postal Code : Country : US
Phone Number : Share

### High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) | High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge | OPPT | US EPA

http://iaspub.epa.gov/hpvis/ServSubmissionPrint [6/15/2011 10:56:37 AM] EPA Home Privacy and Security Notice Contact Us http://iaspub.epa.gov/hpvis/ServSubmissionPrint Print As-Is Last updated on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 Fax Number : E-Mail Address : Type of Sponsor : Company 

## Technical Point of Contact Information

Technical Point of Contact : Title : Phone Number : Fax Number : E-Mail Address :
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

DEVONTE DURIL TRICE , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No s . 4D 17

- 1713 and 4D17

- 1714

[October 11, 2018 ]

Consolidated a ppeal s from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2013

- CF

- 007017

- AXXX

- MB and 50

- 2013

- CF

- 007018 AXXX

- MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and J. Woodson Isom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bon di, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez

- Orosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ERBER , C.J., L EVINE and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Prepared and filed by St Ives Burrups






Exhibit 4.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Statements on Schedule 13D


The undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Brian
  Reilly as the undersigned’s true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent,
  with full power of substitution and resubstitution, to sign on the undersigned’s
  behalf any or all Statements on Schedule 13D, and any or all amendments thereto,
  relating to the common stock of Masisa S.A., and to file the same, with all
  exhibits thereto, or any other documents whatsoever, with the Securities and
  Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact or agent, full power
  and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
  to be done in and about the promises, hereby ratifying and confirming all that
  said attorney-in-fact or agent, or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause
  to be done by virtue hereof.




Dated as of 4 April 2003.





/s/ Peter Fuchs
——————————————————
Peter Fuchs
§ 1.412(b)-2 Amortization of experience gains in connection with certain group deferred annuity contracts. ( a ) *Experience gain treatment.* Dividends, rate credits, and credits for forfeitures arising in a plan described in paragraph (b) of this section are experience gains described in section 412(b)(3)(B)(ii) (relating to the amortization of experience gains).
( b ) *Plan.* A plan is described in this paragraph (b) if— ( 1 ) The plan is funded solely through a group deferred annuity contract,
( 2 ) The annual single premium required under the contract for the purchase of the benefits accruing during the plan year is treated as the normal cost of the plan for that year, and
( 3 ) The amount necessary to pay in equal annual installments, over the appropriate amortization period, an amount equal to the single premium necessary to provide all past service benefits not initially funded, together with interest thereon, is treated as the annual amortization amount determined under section 412(b)(2)(B) (i), (ii) or (iii).
( c ) *Effective date.* This section applies for the first plan year to which section 412 applies that begins after May 22, 1981.
[T.D. 7764, 46 FR 6923, Jan. 22, 1981]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<CIK>         0000814576
<NAME>        PAINEWEBBER R&D PARTNERS II, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               6,998
<SECURITIES>                                     3,014,048
<RECEIVABLES>                                      906,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,053,394
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,927,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               75,725
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,851,921
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,927,646
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,337,549
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   117,756
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,219,793
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,219,793
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2015236EN.01004001.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Deluxe Laboratories v OHIM (deluxe)

(Case T-222/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community mark deluxe - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctiveness acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 236/53)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deluxe Laboratories, Inc. (Burbank, California, United States) (represented by: S. Serrat Viñas, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2014 (Case R 1250/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign deluxe as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 January 2014 (Case R 1250/2013-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 January 2014 (Case R 1250/2013-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

1

---
§ 1.42-3 Treatment of buildings financed with proceeds from a loan under an Affordable Housing Program established pursuant to section 721 of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). ( a ) *Treatment under sections 42(i) and 42(b).* A below market loan funded in whole or in part with funds from an Affordable Housing Program established under section 721 of FIRREA is not, solely by reason of the Affordable Housing Program funds, a below market Federal loan as defined in section 42(i)(2)(D). Thus, any building with respect to which the proceeds of the loan are used during the tax year is not, solely by reason of the Affordable Housing Program funds, treated as a federally subsidized building for that tax year and subsequent tax years for purposes of determining the applicable percentage for the building under section 42(b).
( b ) *Effective date.* The rules set forth in paragraph (a) of this section are effective for loans made after August 8, 1989.
[56 FR 48734, Sept. 26, 1991]