alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

152) ll-E-3 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:58 AM Sheet 152 of 276 
CONVERSATION RECORD 

A GO !H| 

P.2 

TIME II-E-3 

TYPE 

• VISIT • CONFERENCE 

Location of Visit/Conferenc**": 

J% TELEPHONE 

• INCOMING 

0 OUTGOING 

NAME OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT 

WITH YOU 

IIA _ ^ r*~"__. • 

ORGANIZATION (Office, dept., bureau, 

etc.) 

TELEPHONE NO. 

'Hit, 12/-;:/?/ 

SUBJECT 

O'O V 7 f. 

ROUTING 

NAME/SYMBOL 

M O * O-' a? 

t a • ;, ' 

Mac vawe(/ 

INT 

SUMMARY 

T tofd ' Mr. 'Ae^A crri -AJG. JfaAlAj. -rx. !»-~rT <? A Tkc~A 

A 

ixjt, ^T l Se./lo//%^ T-,3 ,/7ea ^ r ^ -? ^ rg/T . Aor Co* r _. -rA p /.r • -

1 CL Is 

A 

-J A! A e r\ rt -p J Vff m nA -a * A f <x </, . g> ^ JLkAL 

^(r>^ WfrPcJ : 

i. D. -O C. u. l^t-i -•<*» n Jg~1~: *i •, O ; 

A\J i J 

_2L_ir£ 

y/. \ f r- ^ / f XI C'-P />.' v** T - fg>r -H h <L- inn ,Vg.r.s ) IA iL • 4 -

A«, AA-ZA .^2. 

• :~** I __, __ 

/C-

•o r J •*- & ^ ^ Ti.:'. -j /-. o A AA a . Vi ~f~<° in c< A <__ e. cx^<L 

lA '•^Ae.c: i o'A'S. fo AAA •d & a i / e r <_ 1 * TU (L 

/ * : /<? rb /i o.-ec^rz. 

i i-. r- r. -T 3 Ao : J noe^ AJJ f oviap. fk *s 

i /- -hof/ki at/ or ia Z?C>t*. Kr> 6-nd JTo v Yr* /Y/ i 

J o^n diS h&k AALA) a ££u rs ] A J J~k At -Tk g fCC CAA J 

ACTION REQUIRED Oj & ha c/< / A SAT Aar. 

50271-101 

O GPO : 1985 O - 461-275 (20090) CONVERSATION RECORD 

NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION 

yOK rc*-" A-r? <? A 

ACTION TAKEN 

SIGNATURE 

SIGNATURE 

z A -'—' y • 

TITLE 

-^*> " *"*!.. W a_a_^ 

DATE 

DATE 

-?d» 

/ 

OPTIONAL FORM 271 (12-76) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

**Servicer Compliance Statement of John Deere Capital Corporation**

 

I, Andrew C. Traeger, Senior Vice President and Controller of John Deere Capital Corporation, certify:

 

A review of John Deere Capital Corporation’s activities for the period from September 9, 2015 (the date of issuance of the John Deere Owner Trust 2015-B transaction subject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through October 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”) and of John Deere Capital Corporation’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 9, 2015 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables, Inc. and John Deere Owner Trust 2015-B has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, John Deere Capital Corporation has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 
| Date: January 8,   2016 | John Deere Capital Corporation |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                         |                           |
|                         |                           |
|                         |                           |
|                         |                           |
|                         | By                             | /s/*Andrew C.   Traeger* |   |
|                         |                           | Andrew C. Traeger |
|                         |                           | Senior Vice President   and Controller |
|                              |                                |  |  |  |

 

----
# C_2015065EN.01002102.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 November 2014 — Toorank Productions BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-533/14)

(2015/C 065/32)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Toorank Productions BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Should heading 2206 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a beverage known as ‘Ferm Fruit’, obtained by fermentation from apple concentrate, which is also used as a beverage base for the production of a variety of other beverages, which has an alcoholic strength by volume of 16 % vol, which, as a result of purification (including ultrafiltration) is neutral with regard to colour, smell and taste, and to which no distilled alcohol has been added, must be classified under that heading? If not, should heading 2208 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that such a beverage must be classified under that heading? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should heading 2206 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a beverage known as ‘Ferm Fruit’, obtained by fermentation from apple concentrate, which is also used as a beverage base for the production of a variety of other beverages, which has an alcoholic strength by volume of 16 % vol, which, as a result of purification (including ultrafiltration) is neutral with regard to colour, smell and taste, and to which no distilled alcohol has been added, must be classified under that heading? If not, should heading 2208 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that such a beverage must be classified under that heading?

| 2. | Should heading 2206 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a beverage with an alcoholic strength by volume of 14 % vol, obtained by mixing the beverage (base) described in question 1 above with sugar, aromatic substances, colouring and flavouring agents, thickening agents and preservatives, and which does not contain any distilled alcohol, must be classified under that heading? If not, should heading 2208 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that such a beverage must be classified under that heading? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should heading 2206 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that a beverage with an alcoholic strength by volume of 14 % vol, obtained by mixing the beverage (base) described in question 1 above with sugar, aromatic substances, colouring and flavouring agents, thickening agents and preservatives, and which does not contain any distilled alcohol, must be classified under that heading? If not, should heading 2208 of the CN be interpreted as meaning that such a beverage must be classified under that heading?

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 25, 2009 

p0318 

Order 

 

March 25, 2009 

137273 

SHEABRA L. SIMPSON, Ph.D., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 137273 

 COA: 275554 

Wayne CC: 04-438895-CD 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JAN EPP, 

and HAMPTON E. WALKER, JR., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, C.J., and HATHAWAY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
From: Chuck French [mailto:French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 10:24 AM

To: Marinshaw, Richard

Cc: Hancy, Cindy Wang; Phil Mulrine Subject: RE: Review of impacted plants

I called and talked with the owner (Bill Onuska) of Hard Chrome Enterprises, Inc., in Lake Park, Florida. He was very helpful. They have a CMP as the main control device. They have 3 tanks, which are all ducted to the CMP. They also have in

- line mist elimi nators. They did compliance emissions tests in 1996 on outlet of the CMP. The controls and operations have not changed since that time. The results for the 3 runs were: 0.0036 mg/dscm, 0.00318 mg/dscm, and 0.00308 mg/dscm. He said he would fax results to

m e. He said the results we have in table 4 (i.e., 0.019 mg/dscm) are not correct.
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.95 β-Carotene. ( a ) *Identity.* ( 1 ) The color additive is β-carotene prepared synthetically or obtained from natural sources.
( 2 ) Color additive mixtures for food use made with β-carotene may contain only diluents that are suitable and that are listed in this subpart as safe in color additive mixtures for coloring foods.
( b ) *Specifications.* β-carotene shall conform to the following specifications: Physical state, solid. 1 percent solution in chloroform, clear. Loss of weight on drying, not more than 0.2 percent. Residue on ignition, not more than 0.2 percent. Lead (as Pb), not more than 10 parts per million. Arsenic (as As), not more than 3 parts per million. Assay (spectrophotometric), 96-101 percent.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* The color additive β-carotene may be safely used for coloring foods generally, in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice, except that it may not be used to color those foods for which standards of identity have been promulgated under section 401 of the act unless added color is authorized by such standards.
( d ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive and any mixtures prepared therefrom and intended solely or in part for coloring purposes shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12184-12185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04817]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday, March 21, 2014.

[[Page 12185]]

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance, Enforcement Matters, and 
Examinations. In the event that the times, dates, or locations of this 
or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along 
with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-
5964.

Natise Allen,
Executive Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2014-04817 Filed 2-28-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
Region ASBESTOS WORKERS BOILER MAKERS LAYERS BRICK CARPENT- ERS CEMENT MASONS CRANE OPERATOR ELECTR ICIAN ELEV. CONST IRON WORKERS 

## Region Averages CONSTRUCTION LAB OR RESEARCH COUN CIL UNION WAGES AND SUPPLEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD 07/01/2008- 07/01/2013

26-Jun-13



### New England 15.3% 16.9% 7.7% 15.9% 19.5% 08-13INC 2.5% 0.7% 1.0% 2.9% 0.2% 12-13INC 

### Middle Atlantic 19.3% 21.9% 15.4% 16.1% 18.4% 17.8% 16.2% 21.7% 20.4% 08-13INC 3.7% 3.0% 2.7% 2.9% 2.9% 2.5% 2.9% 0.2% 3.6% 12-13INC 

### Southeast 13.2% 13.3% 9.1% 9.3% 9.6% 23.8% 7.0% 08-13INC 1.6% 0.6% 0.0% 1.8% 1.1% 0.4% 0.6% 12-13INC 

### East North Central 15.4% 17.7% 12.1% 13.0% 12.3% 16.0% 15.0% 20.8% 13.0% 08-13INC 3.0% 3.7% 2.4% 2.3% 2.2% 2.5% 2.8% 0.4% 2.5% 12-13INC 

### West North Central 14.5% 18.8% 12.4% 16.0% 11.3% 17.3% 22.1% 18.9% 08-13INC 0.9% 2.6% 1.9% 2.3% 2.1% 2.7% 0.3% 3.0% 12-13INC 

### South Central 13.2% 5.4% 2.2% 11.8% 25.0% 08-13INC 0.2% 1.6% 0.0% 1.2% 0.4% 12-13INC 

### Mountain-Northern Plains 22.7% 23.9% 08-13INC 3.2% 0.8% 12-13INC

1Region ASBESTOS WORKERS BOILER MAKERS LAYERS BRICK CARPENT- ERS CEMENT MASONS CRANE OPERATOR ELECTR ICIAN ELEV. CONST IRON WORKERS 

## Region Averages CONSTRUCTION LAB OR RESEARCH COUN CIL UNION WAGES AND SUPPLEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD 07/01/2008- 07/01/2013

26-Jun-13



### Southwest Pacific 24.5% 16.8% 11.9% 16.9% 18.1% 12.3% 19.1% 8.4% 08-13INC 3.0% 2.7% 2.6% 2.0% 0.1% 1.5% 0.2% 2.7% 12-13INC 

### Northwest 22.5% 10.1% 9.9% 12.6% 20.2% 11.9% 08-13INC 3.1% 2.5% 2.1% 3.0% 0.2% 0.0% 12-13INC 

### U.S. Average 14.9% 17.9% 13.6% 13.5% 13.2% 16.0% 13.8% 21.7% 12.5% 08-13INC 2.4% 2.2% 2.2% 2.4% 2.2% 2.4% 2.3% 0.3% 2.6% 12-13INC

2
§ 876.5470 Ureteral dilator. ( a ) *Identification.* A ureteral dilator is a device that consists of a specially shaped catheter or bougie and is used to dilate the ureter at the place where a stone has become lodged or to dilate a ureteral stricture.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER

OF J.J.S.,

A CHILD

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00261-CV

Appeal from the

22nd District Court

of Hays County, Texas

(TC# 10-2304)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before us on our own motion to determine if it should be dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction. Finding that there is no final judgment or appealable order, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

In his pro se notice of appeal, Robert Samaniego states he is appealing the trial court’s 

order “given on August 25, 2016 . . . .” We have reviewed the clerk’s record filed on 

December 29, 2016. It reflects that Samaniego filed separate motions to modify child support 

and visitation in November 2015, and he filed an amended motion to modify in March 2016. 

There is nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court conducted a hearing or ruled on the 

motions to modify. Further, the Clerk’s Office contacted the Hays County District Clerk’s 

Office to determine if the record contained an order on Samaniego’s motion to modify, but none 

was located. Consequently, the Clerk of the Court sent Samaniego a letter notifying him that the 
- 2 -

Clerk’s Record does not contain an appealable order and the appeal would be dismissed for want 

of jurisdiction unless, within ten days of the notice, he responded and showed grounds for 

continuing the appeal. Samaniego filed a written response focusing exclusively on the propriety 

of the transfer of the appeal from the Third Court of Appeals to this Court. 

It is well settled that appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments, and such 

interlocutory orders as the Legislature deems appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 

39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Ruiz v. Ruiz, 946 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1997, 

no pet.); TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2016)(authorizing appeals 

from certain interlocutory orders). Because the clerk’s record does not contain an appealable 

order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3(a).

January 27, 2017

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
Exhibit 35.8



|     |  |  |                       |                
|---- |  |  | --------------------- | ---------------
|LOGO |  |  |                       | CMBS Department
|     |  |  | MAC N9401-011        
|     |  |  | 1055 10th Avenue SE  
|     |  |  | Minneapolis, MN 55414

Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich
Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|RE: | Annual Statement of Compliance for COMM 2015-CCRE24 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2015 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., as Custodian (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such
officers supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 17, 2016



|              
|--------------
|LOGO          
|              
|GAIL VANNEST  
|Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.2050 General purpose laboratory equipment labeled or promoted for a specific medical use. ( a ) *Identification.* General purpose laboratory equipment labeled or promoted for a specific medical use is a device that is intended to prepare or examine specimens from the human body and that is labeled or promoted for a specific medical use.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is identified in paragraph (a) of this section and is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 862.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 66 FR 38788, July 25, 2001]
Exhibit
10.23


 


 


November 14, 2002


 


Mr. Roger T. Staubach


Chairman & CEO


The Staubach Company


15601 Dallas Parkway


Suite 400


Addison, TX 75001


 


Dear Mr. Staubach:


 


This will confirm the following agreement relating to
the deferral of your director’s fees in 2003.


 


1.                                       All
director’s fees and retainers (“Fees”) 
payable to you in connection with your service on the boards of
directors (including committees of such boards) of AMR Corporation and American
Airlines, Inc. for the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 , will
be deferred and paid to you in accordance with this letter agreement.


 


2.                                       Fees
will be converted to Stock Equivalent Units in accordance with the Directors’
Stock Equivalent Purchase Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A
(the “Plan”).


 


3.                                       Within
30 days of the date when you cease to be a Director of AMR Corporation, the
Stock Equivalent Units accrued pursuant to the Plan will be converted to cash
and paid to you by multiplying the number of such Stock Equivalent Units by the
arithmetic mean of the high and the low of AMR stock during the month when you
ceased to be a Director of AMR Corporation.


 


4.                                       AMR’s
obligation to make the payment pursuant to paragraph 3 hereof will not be
released or modified by reason of your death. 
In such event, the cash payment contemplated by paragraph 3 will be made
to Marianne Staubach.


 

















 


If the foregoing is satisfactory to you, please
indicate by signing one of the originals (two are enclosed) and returning it to
me.


 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Charles D. MarLett

  
	
   

  	
  Corporate Secretary

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Accepted and agreed:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Roger T.
  Staubach

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Roger T. Staubach

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  11/20/02

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date

  	
   

  
				



 


2
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.3725 Powered environmental control system. ( a ) *Identification.* A powered environmental control system is an AC- or battery-powered device intended for medical purposes that is used by a patient to operate an environmental control function. Examples of environmental control functions include the following: to control room temperature, to answer a doorbell or telephone, or to sound an alarm for assistance.
( 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 § 890.9.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 63 FR 59231, Nov. 3, 1998]
# C_2014142EN.01004001.xml

| 12.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/40

---

Action brought on 14 February 2014 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v OHIM — GAP (ITM) (GAPPol)

(Case T-125/14)

2014/C 142/52

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: GAP (ITM), Inc. (San Francisco, 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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2013 in Case R 686/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2013 in Case R 686/2013-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark in respect of which registration is sought: a figurative mark containing the word element ‘GAPPol’ for goods and services in Classes 20, 25 and 37 — Application No 8 346 165 for a Community trade mark.

Community trade mark in respect of which registration is sought:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word marks ‘GAP’, Community figurative marks containing the word element ‘GAP’, as well as national word marks ‘GAP’ and national figurative marks containing the word element ‘GAP’, for goods in Class 25.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---