alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (logo) plante moran | **Plante & Moran, PLLC**

10 South Riverside Plaza

9th floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: 312.207.1040

Fax: 312.207.1066

plantemoran.com |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

 

We have examined National TaxSearch, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, set forth in Item 1122(d) of theSecurity and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the National Tax SearchTaxQ system (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016. TheCompany has determined that only certain servicing criteria, 1122(d)(l)(ii),1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to the activities performed by it with respectto the Platform covered by this report. The Company has determined that theremaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation ABare not applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to thePlatform covered by this report.

 

Management is responsible forthe Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliancewith the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination wasconducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included a selection of a sample of transactionsand compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination periodand determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performedthose activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing ofselected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations,reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may haveoccurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this reportfor the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with theservicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteriaas of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairlystated in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC

 

Chicago, IL

January 27, 2017

 

 

(logo) Praxity 

MEMBER

GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF 

INDEPENDENT FIRMS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,431
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,243
<INVENTORY>                                      3,770
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,639
<PP&E>                                          83,796
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,799
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,621
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,731
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,149)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,837
<SALES>                                         14,554
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,380
<CGS>                                           11,063
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,188
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    53
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,564
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,949)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (600)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,349)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,349)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.69)


</TABLE>
# C_2014212EN.01003602.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/36

---

Action brought on 22 April 2014 — Promarc Technics v OHIM — PIS (Part of doors)

(Case T-251/14)

2014/C 212/47

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Promarc Technics s.c. Tomasz Pokrywa, Rafał Natorski (Zabierzów, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, 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: Petrycki i Sorys sp.j. (PIS) (Jasło, Poland)

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 Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 January 2014 in Case R 1464/2012-3; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 January 2014 in Case R 1464/2012-3;

| — | 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

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design No 1608365-0001

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community design:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design:

Grounds of the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the registered Community design lacks novelty and individual character

Grounds of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Invalidity Division: Design declared invalid

Decision of the Invalidity Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4 to 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs.

Pleas in law:

---
# DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N DOCKE TOPERATION S

JOH N LAZA S MAYO R 

# mOC

T - U A S : 2 2 OFFIC E O F TII E M A vo n

15 6 S.BROADWAY , Sun n 23 0 I TUKLCXTK , CALIFOIU-I W953S 0 I PHON E 209-668-554 0 I FA X 209-668-566 8

AUCUSI9 , 201 0

Ray Lailood , Sccrctar) ' o f Transportatio n U.S
. Departmen t

o f Traiisportalio n 40 0 7" " Street , S W Wasliinglon , D C 2059 0 Sobject : Smal l Communit> ' Ai r Ser\ic e Dcvelopnicn t

Progra m Modest o Citj'-Countj ' Airport , Modesto , C A Dea r Mr
. Secretary , 1 a mwritin g o n behal f

o f th e Cit y o f

Turloc k t o shar e ou r

stron g support

fo r th e Modest o City-Count y Airport' s curren t effort s t o acquir e grant

fiind s throug h th e Federa l Departmen t o f Transportation' s Smal l Communit y Ai r Service Program(SCASDP)
. Thes e funds wil l b e use dt o improv e ai r ser\'ic e t o ou r

community , whic h i s critica l t o th e economi c developmen t i n ou r area . Th e SCASD P gran t wil l b e use dt o hel p fundestablishin g direc t dail y passenge r

ai r servic e betwee n Modest o an dPortlan do r Seattle , i n additio n t o th e existin g servic e t o San Francisco
. Conunercia l ai r

scr\'ic c a t Modest o City-County Airport play s a n importan t

rol e i n providin g support

t o business , goveninient , education , andleisur e trave l l o an dfromth e area . Futur e growth o f tli e Modest o communit y depends , i n pan , o n th e airport' s ability t o mee t th e need s o f

existin g local businesses , a s wel l a s companie s considerin g Modest o a s aloailio n for thei r operations
. Direc t

dail y passenge r

servic e betwee n Modest o an dastxon dairlin e hu b wil l lay th e groundwork fo r providin g fo

r ai r transportatio n fo

r bot h curren t an dfuture need s i n this region
. I amconfiden t

yo u wil l agre e that

a n investmen t

i n tlii s projec t

wil l prox-id

e grea t benefit s fo

r Modc:>t u an dth e entir e Centra l Valle y serve db y Modest o City-Count y Airport
. Thi s i s aprojec t that ha s stron g communit y support , an dwith you r

help , ca n proWdc substantia l benefit s l o th e community
. Fo r thes e reasons . I rcspcctfiill y reques t tlia t th e Modest o City-Count y Airport b e strongl y con.siderc da s aworth y recipien t o f th e Smal l Corrununity Ai r Servic e Developmen t

Progra mgiant
. Sincere ]

Modest o City-Count y Airpor t - Smol l Communit y Ai rServic e Developmen t Gran t - Augus t 201 0 5 2
§ 884.1 Scope. ( a ) This part sets forth the classification of obstetrical and gynecological devices intended for human use that are in commercial distribution.
( b ) The identification of a device in a regulation in this part is not a precise description of every device that is, or will be, subject to the regulation. A manufacturer who submits a premarket notification submission for a device under part 807 may not show merely that the device is accurately described by the section title and identification provisions of a regulation in this part, but shall state why the device is substantially equivalent to other devices, as required by § 807.87.
( c ) To avoid duplicative listings, an obstetrical and gynecological device that has two or more types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and as a therapeutic device) is listed only in one subpart.
( d ) References in this part to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21, unless otherwise noted.
( e ) Guidance documents referenced in this part are available on the Internet at *http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm .*
[52 FR 17740, May 11, 1987, as amended at 68 FR 44415, Aug. 27, 2003; 78 FR 18233, Mar. 26, 2013]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6481

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LAMONT TATE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00185-FDW-4)

Submitted: January 20, 2023 Decided: February 6, 2023

Before THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lamont Tate, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6481 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/06/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Lamont Tate appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of 

sentence under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. United States v. Tate, No. 3:01-cr-00185-FDW-4 (W.D.N.C. 

Apr. 11, 2022). 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6481 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/06/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 In connection with the Quarterly Report of American HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the  period ending December 31, 2005 as  filed
 with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
 "Report"), I, John  C. Stuecheli, Chief  Financial Officer  of the  Company,
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as  adopted pursuant to S 906 of  the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

           (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements of  Section
           13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

           (2)  The information contained in  the Report fairly presents,  in
           all material  respects,  the  financial condition  and  result  of
           operations of the Company.



 /s/ John C. Stuecheli


 John C. Stuecheli

 Chief Financial Officer

 February 14, 2006
EXHIBIT
        32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350,
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Fonix Corporation on Form 10-Q for
        the
        period ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas A. Murdock, Chief
        Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350,
        as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
 
 (1) The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 **/s/
                  THOMAS A. MURDOCK**Thomas
                  A. MurdockChief
                  Executive Officer
 
 Dated
        January 8, 2007
Exhibit
32.01








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


REQUIRED
BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)


AND
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


OF
2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Williams Controls, Inc (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December
31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Patrick W. Cavanagh, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.

















/s/ PATRICK W.
CAVANAGH


Patrick
W. Cavanagh


Chief
Executive Officer


Williams
Controls, Inc.


February
11, 2009
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1396 KA 10-01036 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARK R. HOLT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), entered March 12, 2010. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq. ). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level ( see People v Clark , 66 AD3d 1366, lv denied 13 NY3d 713; People v Ratcliff , 53 AD3d 1110, lv denied 11 NY3d 708). In any event, that contention lacks merit “inasmuch as defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances justifying a downward departure” ( People v McDaniel , 27 AD3d 1158, 1159, lv denied 7 NY3d 703).

Entered: December 30, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in theevent that publications are no longer available from the original publishingagency site. (Historical purposes)

**Title:** A blueprint for R.E.S.P.E.C.T. :recognizing educational success, professional excellence and collaborativeteaching

PDF,ePUB

 
SuDoc:ED 1.2:R 31/8
Item Number:0455-B-02 (online)
CGP system Number:001019373
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8594
BENJAMIN HENDERSON JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BERT M. MONTAGUE; PATRICIA S. CO NNOR; JUDITH CAREEN; STEVEN H. GOLDBLATT; MICHELLE J. ANDERSON; DAURIE J. SIMMONS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1681-AM) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin Henderson Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissinghis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint without prejudice. The complaint may be saved by amendment. Thus, we have no jurisdiction over the current appeal. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Anthony Komninos

Argued March 5

decided March 5, 1968

*John J. Hunt,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Arlen D. Nickowits,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

The application by John J. Hunt to withdraw his appearance for the defendant in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is granted.
#### § 1.162-14 Expenditures for advertising or promotion of good will.

A corporation which has, for the purpose of computing its excess profits tax credit under Subchapter E, Chapter 2, or Subchapter D, Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, elected under section 733 or section 451 (applicable to the excess profits tax imposed by Subchapter E of Chapter 2, and Subchapter D of Chapter 1, respectively) to charge to capital account for taxable years in its base period expenditures for advertising or the promotion of good will which may be regarded as capital investments, may not deduct similar expenditures for the taxable year. See section 263(b). Such a taxpayer has the burden of proving that expenditures for advertising or the promotion of good will which it seeks to deduct in the taxable year may not be regarded as capital investments under the provisions of the regulations prescribed under section 733 or section 451 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. See 26 CFR, 1938 ed., 35.733-2 (Regulations 112) and 26 CFR (1939) 40.451-2 (Regulations 130). For the disallowance of deductions for the cost of advertising in programs of certain conventions of political parties, or in publications part of the proceeds of which directly or indirectly inures (or is intended to inure) to or for the use of a political party or political candidate, see § 1.276-1.

[T.D. 6996, 34 FR 835, Jan. 18, 1969]
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1330 Nuclear whole body scanner. ( a ) *Identification.* A nuclear whole body scanner is a device intended to measure and image the distribution of radionuclides in the body by means of a wide-aperture detector whose position moves in one direction with respect to the patient. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, radionuclide anatomical markers, component parts, and accessories.
( 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 § 892.9.
[55 FR 48444, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 65 FR 2322, Jan. 14, 2000]
Exhibit 99.7



CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer
of CannTrust Holdings Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the annual report on Form 40-F
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of CannTrust Holdings Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to §906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly
disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



Date: March 28, 2019





|/s/ Greg Guyatt               | 
|----------------------------- | 
|Greg Guyatt                   | 
|Chief Financial Officer       | 
|(principal financial officer) |