alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I,Anthony Sfarra, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of theWells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-LC22 (the "Exchange Actperiodic reports");

 

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary 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 my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances ofnoncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report onForm 10-K.

 

Ingiving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on informationprovided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

NationalCooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC,as Special Servicer, National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer,Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC, as Trust Advisor, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., asServicing Function Participant, National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer for theSomerset Park Apartments Mortgage Loan prior to July 5, 2018, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC, as Special Servicer for the Somerset Park Apartments MortgageLoan on and after July 5, 2018, Wilmington Trust, National Association, asTrustee for the Somerset Park Apartments Mortgage Loan, Pentalpha SurveillanceLLC, as Trust Advisor for the Somerset Park Apartments Mortgage Loan, CoreLogicCommercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant forthe Somerset Park Apartments Mortgage Loan, and National Tax Search, LLC, asServicing Function Participant for the Somerset Park Apartments Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated:October 31, 2019

 

 

/s/Anthony Sfarra

 

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3211

_____________________________
D ARRELL L. W ASHINGTON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Dixie County

. Wesley R. Douglas , Judge

. May 29, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , K ELSEY , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Darrell L. Washington, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 46

Authorizing expenditures by the Joint Committee on the Organization of

Congress

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 28 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. BOREN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules and Administration

RESOLUTION

Authorizing expenditures by the Joint Committee on the

Organization of Congress

1 Resolved, That in carrying out its powers, duties, and

2 functions under the Standing Rules of the Senate, in ac3 cordance with its jurisdiction under rule XXV of such

4 rules, including holding hearings, reporting such hearings,

5 and making investigations as authorized by paragraphs 1

6 and 8 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate,

7 the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress is

8 authorized $475,000 from March 1, 1993, to December

9 31, 1993, in its discretion (1) to make expenditures from

10 the contingent fund of the Senate, (2) to employ person-
2

SRES 46 IS

1 nel, and (3) with the prior consent of the Government de2 partment or agency concerned and the Committee on

3 Rules and Administration, to use on a reimbursable, or

4 non-reimbursable basis the services of personnel of any

5 such department or agency.

6 SEC. 2. The expenses of the committee for the period

7 March 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, under this

8 resolution shall not exceed $475,000, of which not to ex9 ceed $5,000 may be expended for the training of the pro10 fessional staff of such committee (under procedures speci11 fied by section 202(j) of the Legislative Reorganization

12 Act of 1946).

13 SEC. 3. The committee shall report its findings, to14 gether with such recommendations for legislation as it

15 deems advisable, to the Senate at the earliest practicable

16 date, but not later than December 31, 1993.

17 SEC. 4. Expenses of the committee under this resolu18 tion shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate

19 upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the commit20 tee, except that vouchers shall not be required for (1) the

21 disbursement of salaries of employees paid at an annual

22 rate, or (2) the payment of telecommunications provided

23 by the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper,

24 United States Senate, or (3) for the payment of stationery

25 supplies purchased through the Keeper of Stationery,
3

SRES 46 IS

1 United States Senate, or (4) for payments to the Post2 master, United States Senate, or (5) for the payment of

3 metered charges on copying equipment provided by the Of4 fice of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, United

5 States Senate, or (6) for the payment of Senate Recording

6 and Photographic Services.

7 SEC. 5. There are authorized such sums as may be

8 necessary for agency contributions related to the com9 pensation of employees of the committee from March 1,

10 1993, through December 31, 1993, to be paid from the

11 Appropriations account for ‘‘Expenses of Inquiries and In12 vestigations’’.

Æ
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5090 Antimitochondrial antibody immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* An antimitochondrial antibody immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the antimitochondrial antibodies in human serum. The measurements aid in the diagnosis of diseases that produce a spectrum of autoantibodies (antibodies produced against the body's own tissue), such as primary biliary cirrhosis (degeneration of liver tissue) and chronic active hepatitis (inflammation of the liver).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
# C_2014329EN.01001801.xml

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/18

---

Action brought on 2 June 2014 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

(Case T-389/14)

2014/C 329/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

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 6 March 2014 given in Case R 1854/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 given in Case R 1854/2013-1;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MARKETINGCLOUD’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 9 79  441

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark not eligible for registration

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 159

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Department of Labor should

provide adequate resources to the States to cover the costs of developing

and implementing the worker profiling system and should provide the

Governors with adequate flexibility to ensure that the funds appropriated

will be made available to provide reemployment services for profiled

claimants.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 28 (legislative day, OCTOBER 13), 1993

Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mrs. HUTCHISON, and Mr.

NICKLES) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Department

of Labor should provide adequate resources to the States

to cover the costs of developing and implementing the

worker profiling system and should provide the Governors with adequate flexibility to ensure that the funds

appropriated will be made available to provide reemployment services for profiled claimants.

Whereas Federal regulation of State and local governments

has become increasingly extensive and intrusive in recent

years;

Whereas such regulation has, in many instances, adversely affected the ability of State and local governments to
2

•SRES 159 ATS

achieve their independent responsibilities and meet their

established priorities;

Whereas such regulation has forced State and local governments to use existing revenue sources or generate new

property tax revenues to enable them to adhere to Federal mandates;

Whereas the resulting excessive fiscal burdens on State and

local governments also undermine the ability of State and

local governments to attain the goals of Federal regulations;

Whereas over 1,000 mayors through the United States Conference of Mayors recognized October 27, 1993, as National Unfunded Federal Mandates Day to call the attention of Congress to the fiscal emergency facing local governments as a result of the onslaught of Federal unfunded mandates;

Whereas support was given to the National Unfunded Federal Mandate Day by the National Association of Counties, the International City and County Management Association, the National Governors’ Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the Council

of State Governments;

Whereas the report of The National Performance Review, issued September 7, 1993, states that ‘‘the President

should issue a directive limiting the use of unfunded

mandates by the Administration,’’ and recommends that

‘‘Congress refrain from this practice’’; and

Whereas the States must have adequate resources to implement effectively any new requirements placed on them by

Federal laws and regulations: Now, therefore, be it
3

•SRES 159 ATS

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the

2 Department of Labor should provide adequate resources

3 to the States to cover the costs of developing and imple4 menting the worker profiling system and should provide

5 the Governors with adequate flexibility to ensure that the

6 funds appropriated will be made available to provide reem7 ployment services for profiled claimants.

Æ
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Helaine M. Kaplan,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 COMM2015-CCRE27 Mortgage Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

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, except asotherwise 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:

 

Midland LoanServices, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, asOperating Advisor, KeyBank National Association, as Primary Servicer, BerkeleyPoint Capital LLC, as Primary Servicer, KeyBank National Association, asPrimary Servicer for the 11 Madison Avenue Mortgage Loan, KeyBank NationalAssociation, as Special Servicer for the 11 Madison Avenue Mortgage Loan,Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee for the 11 Madison AvenueMortgage Loan, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator for the 11 Madison Avenue Mortgage Loan, and Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian for the 11 Madison Avenue Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 16, 2018

 

 

/s/ Helaine M. Kaplan

 

 

President

(senior officer in charge ofsecuritization of the depositor)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-5231 THERON RATH LIVINGSTON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR-94-260-DKC) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: February 2, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELDavid L. Zeiger, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, John F. Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Theron Rath Livingston pled guilty to one count of distributing crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1981 & Supp. 1995), andwas sentenced to serve a term of 70 months imprisonment. He contends on appeal that the district court erred in departing downward by only two offense levels under USSG § 5K1.1,* as requested by the government. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The extent of a downward departure cannot be challenged on appeal by a defendant unless the departure resulted in a sentence imposed in violation of law or resulted from an incorrect application of the guidelines. United States v. Hill , 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir.1995). Livingston asserts that the district court failed to make an independent assessment of the usefulness of his cooperation. However, the record does not bear out his assertion. The district court heard anextensive discussion of Livingston's cooperation both from the government and from Livingston's wife and mother. Livingston also submitted a chronology of his efforts to assist the government. The district court found that Livingston's delay in entering his guilty plea and beginning his cooperation had diminished his ability to provide useful information. We find that the district court properly assessed Livingston's assistance before deciding that a two-level departure was appropriate.Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

_________________________________________________________________ *United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov. 1994).
2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

The Commission gives notice that it has formally requested that the parties to the below listed agreement provide additional information pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 40304(d). This action prevents the agreement from becoming effective as originally scheduled.

*Agreement No.:*                     011584-007.                

*Title:*                     NYK/WWL/NSCSA/Cooperative Working Agreement.                

*Parties:*                     Nippon Yusen Kaisha; Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics AS; and the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia.                

By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

Dated: July 28, 2009.

Karen V. Gregory,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-18362 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
427 A.2d 1219

#### Commonwealth v. Kiscaden, Appellant.

Submitted September 13, 1979.

Thomas G. Klingensmith, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;

Ronald L. Buckwalter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before PRICE, WIEAND and VAN der VOORT, JJ.*

*

 Judge Donald E. Wieand is sitting by special designation.

Judgment of sentence and order denying reconsideration thereof affirmed.
# C_2014431EN.01004802.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/48

---

Action brought on 31 July 2014 — ZZ v ECSEL Joint Undertaking

(Case F-75/14)

(2014/C 431/77)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V.A. Christianos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: ECSEL Joint Undertaking

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report drawn up in respect of 2012.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the contested decision by which ARTEMIS dismissed the applicant’s complaint and annul the contested act adopted on 15 November by the appeal assessor concerning the applicant’s reasoned refusal to accept the content of his appraisal report in respect of 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision by which ARTEMIS dismissed the applicant’s complaint and annul the contested act adopted on 15 November by the appeal assessor concerning the applicant’s reasoned refusal to accept the content of his appraisal report in respect of 2012;

| — | order the ECSEL Joint Undertaking to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECSEL Joint Undertaking to pay the costs.

---
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3590 Knee joint tibial (hemi-knee) metallic resurfacing uncemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A knee joint tibial (hemi-knee) metallic resurfacing uncemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace part of a knee joint. The device limits minimally (less than normal anatomic constraints) translation in one or more planes. It has no linkage across-the-joint. This prosthesis is made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and is intended to resurface one tibial condyle. The generic type of device is limited to those prostheses intended for use without bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
§ 884.6160 Assisted reproduction labware. ( a ) *Identification.* Assisted reproduction labware consists of laboratory equipment or supplies intended to prepare, store, manipulate, or transfer human gametes or embryos for in vitro fertilization (IVF), gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT), or other assisted reproduction procedures. These include syringes, IVF tissue culture dishes, IVF tissue culture plates, pipette tips, dishes, plates, and other vessels that come into physical contact with gametes, embryos or tissue culture media.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls) (mouse embryo assay information, endotoxin testing, sterilization validation, design specifications, labeling requirements, and clinical testing). The device, when it is a dish or plate intended for general assisted reproduction technology procedures, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 884.9.
[45 FR 12684, Feb. 26, 1980, as amended at 84 FR 71816, Dec. 30, 2019]