alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors, PNCFinancial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessmentof Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland LoanServices, a division of PNC Bank, National Association (“Midland”or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for alltransactions serviced on the *Enterprise!* Loan Management System (the“Platform”), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended,excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C),1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to theservicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Managementis responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backedtransactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether theCompany processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed bythe Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that Midland complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 17, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106*

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816)218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*

* *
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 134

Urging the Government of Kuwait to compensate United States citizens

and their families for financial losses incurred as a result of their evacuation during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 23 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

Urging the Government of Kuwait to compensate United

States citizens and their families for financial losses incurred as a result of their evacuation during the Iraqi

invasion of Kuwait.

Whereas during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990,

the United States Government evacuated numerous families within a 48-hour period;

Whereas many of these families consisted of one or more

American citizens and their immediate relatives;

Whereas the urgent nature of the evacuation process forced

these families to leave personal property and assets in

Kuwait;
2

•SRES 134 IS

Whereas since the liberation of Kuwait, the Government of

Kuwait has not permitted these families to return to Kuwait to settle their financial accounts;

Whereas many of these families have not been compensated

for contractual and business obligations that existed before the invasion of Kuwait;

Whereas the Government of Kuwait has acknowledged that it

is ‘‘well aware of the indispensable contributions made by

many of the foreign workers who resided in Kuwait before August 2, 1990’’; and

Whereas these families are at present residing in several

States throughout the United States and are being supported through public assistance programs and loans

from the United States Government: Now, therefore, be

it

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

2 President should encourage the Government of Kuwait to

3 compensate the American citizens and their families which

4 were evacuated from Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion of

5 August 1990, in accordance with the applicable contrac6 tual, business, and financial obligations of the Government

7 of Kuwait or of its citizens, as the case may be.

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 145 (Thursday, July 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 38050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18179]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,052]

Clarity Technologies, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on June 6, 
2009 by a Washington State agency representative on behalf of workers 
of Clarity Technologies, Inc., Auburn Hills, Michigan.
    The petition has been deemed invalid. A State agency representative 
or One-Stop Office Operator/Partner may not file a petition on behalf 
of workers of a firm located in another State. Consequently, the 
investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 16th day of July, 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-18179 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
<page> EXHIBIT 32.01

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 Dean Witter Principal
Plus Fund L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey A.
Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 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 Partnership.









By:  	/s/Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		   Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	   President

Date:		   August 16, 2004
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.5860 Ultrasound and muscle stimulator. ( a ) *Ultrasound and muscle stimulator for use in applying therapeutic deep heat for selected medical conditions* — ( 1 ) *Identification.* An ultrasound and muscle stimulator for use in applying therapeutic deep heat for selected medical conditions is a device that applies to specific areas of the body ultrasonic energy at a frequency beyond 20 kilohertz and that is intended to generate deep heat within body tissues for the treatment of selected medical conditions such as relief of pain, muscle spasms, and joint contractures, but not for the treatment of malignancies. The device also passes electrical currents through the body area to stimulate or relax muscles.
( 2 ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
( b ) *Ultrasound and muscle stimulator for all other uses* — ( 1 ) *Identification.* An ultrasound and muscle stimulator for all other uses except for the treatment of malignancies is a device that applies to the body ultrasonic energy at a frequency beyond 20 kilohertz and applies to the body electrical currents and that is intended for the treatment of medical conditions by means other than the generation of deep heat within body tissues and the stimulation or relaxation of muscles as described in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of PDP is required.* A PMA or notice of completion of a PDP for a device described in paragraph (b) of this section is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before July 13, 1999 for any ultrasound and muscle stimulator described in paragraph (b) of this section that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before July 13, 1999, been found to be substantially equivalent to an ultrasound and muscle stimulator described in paragraph (b) of this section that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other ultrasound and muscle stimulator described in paragraph (b) of this section shall have an approved PMA or declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 52 FR 17742, May 11, 1987; 64 FR 18331, Apr. 14, 1999]
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

275 ) ll-K- Qfy -

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:58 AM Sheet 275 of 325 
P.2 

*-** -? ?ry\ 

II-K-(A)-7 

IFCAM PROJECTIONS OF NEW INDUSTRIAL BOILER COAL DEMAND 

EEA, Inc. 

June 15, 1983 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(A)-7
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4025 Silicone sheeting. ( a ) *Identification.* Silicone sheeting is intended for use in the management of closed hyperproliferative (hypertrophic and keloid) scars.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 878.9.
[69 FR 48148, Aug. 9, 2004]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

March 22, 2017

s0315 

# Order

Clerk March 22, 2017

154233

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154233

COA: 327025

Eaton CC: 14

- 020371

- FH

MEAGAN ANN DEGNER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2016

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.
August 11, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DAVID RUIZ, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00285-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: IRS redesignated the following sections to appear below the undesignated center heading “Regulations Applicable to Certain Bonds Sold Prior to July 8, 1997” and preceding the undesignated center heading “Deductions for Personal Exemptions.” See 62 FR 25507 and 25513, May 9, 1997 for the specific sections involved in the redesignation.

§ 1.404(k)-3 Disallowance of deduction for reacquisition payments. Q-1: Are payments to reacquire stock held by an ESOP applicable dividends that are deductible under section 404(k)(1)?
A-1: ( a ) Payments to reacquire stock held by an ESOP, including reacquisition payments that are used to make benefit distributions to participants or beneficiaries, are not deductible under section 404(k) because— ( 1 ) Those payments do not constitute applicable dividends under section 404(k)(2); and
( 2 ) The treatment of those payments as applicable dividends would constitute, in substance, an avoidance or evasion of taxation within the meaning of section 404(k)(5).
( b ) See also § 1.162(k)-1 concerning the disallowance of deductions for amounts paid or incurred by a corporation in connection with the reacquisition of its stock from an ESOP.
Q-2: What is the effective date of this section?
A-2: This section applies with respect to payments to reacquire stock that are made on or after August 30, 2006.
[T.D. 9282, 71 FR 51474, Aug. 30, 2006]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7884

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARJORIE MOISE, a/k/a Jane Doe, a/k/a Katrina

Yates,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CR-95-194, CA-01-2896-9-8)

Submitted: April 30, 2003 Decided: July 18, 2003

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marjorie Moise, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Marjorie Moise appeals from the order of the district court

denying relief on her motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her

sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). In reviewing

the denial of a § 2255 motion, this court may only grant a

certificate of appealability if the appellant makes a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). The relevant inquiry is whether “‘reasonable

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Assuming without deciding

that equitable tolling applies, we conclude that Moise has failed

to make this showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Moise’s motion

for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral 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
#### Milton *v.*Milton.

Beck, P. J.

1. The court did not err in allowing the amendment offered by the plaintiff, striking the fifth paragraph of the petition, in which it is alleged that “the tract of land and the gin-house and gin outfit located thereon is worth for rent” a stated sum; nor in allowing the plaintiff by amendment to strike £rom the prayer of the petition the following language: “that petitioner have judgment against the defendant for such rent as may be found to be due.”

2. The court did not err in allowing the amendment to the prayers of the petition, that “the title to the land in question, together with the gin-house and gin outfit located thereon, be decreed to be in petitioner.” *93In view of the issues made by the- pleadings in the case, this prayer was germane to the action as it stood at the time the amendment was offered.

No. 8272.

January 12, 1932.

Rehearing denied February 19, 1932.

3. Nor did the court err in allowing an amendment more precisely defining and setting out the boundaries of the tract of land sued for. This amendment did not set out a new cause of action.

4. Exception is taken to the following charge of the court: “While implied possession or constructive possession is not satisfactory and it must appear that the donee was put in possession, that, if thereafter or at the time donee was put in possession he permits another, either as his tenant or otherwise, to actually occupy the premises, it would not in and of itself defeat such possession as the law requires; provided the occupancy of it is somebody else by and with the permission of the donee.” *Held,*that this charge was not error, and that it stated the correct rule as applicable to one of the issues in the case*

5. The court did not err in permitting the witness O. E. Milton to testify that “by 1920 he had paid to his father, J. J. Milton, enough of the proceeds of the gin to repay him for the purchase-price of the gin.”

6. Nor did the court err in admitting the testimony of C. E. Milton, the plaintiff, to the effect that he had made a contract with his father, by the terms of which his father was to handle all the books and collect the money until he was repaid the money he, the father, had advanced to buy the gin. Nor -did the court err in admitting evidence of a similar purport, as set out in another ground of the motion for a new trial.

7. The court did not err in saying to counsel for the defendant, “You can have exclusive possession of property while somebody else lives on it;” this having been stated to counsel in reply to objection raised by counsel to admitting testimony offered by the plaintiff.

8. The evidence authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Bussell, O. J., who dissents.*

*97
      *M. C.*Barwick, for plaintiff in error.

*Roy V. Harris*and *N. J. Smith,*contra.
427 A.2d 1211

#### Collins, Jr. v. Kenworth Trucks Philadelphia, Inc. et al. Appeal of Kenworth Trucks Philadelphia, Inc.

*608Argued September 11, 1979.

D. Barry Gibbons, for appellant;

Dennis Woody, for Collins, Jr., appellee;

James W. Gould, for Paccar, appellee.

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

*

 Judge Donald E. Wieand is sitting by special designation.

Order affirmed.
Exhibit 4.1(b)

                          CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF

                         CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION OF

                   THE BLUEBOOK INTERNATIONAL HOLDING COMPANY

                     (SERIES C CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK)

     The Bluebook International Holding Company, a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), certifies
that:

     A.     The name of the Corporation is The Bluebook International Holding
Company.  The Corporation was originally incorporated under the name "Gama
Computer Corporation".  The Corporation's original Certificate of Incorporation
was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on December 18,
1997, as amended.   The Corporation's original Certificate of Designation
(Series C Convertible Preferred Stock) was filed with the Secretary of State of
the State of Delaware on August 19, 2002.

     B.     This Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Designation was duly
adopted in accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware, and amends Article 1 of the Corporation's Certificate of
Designation.

     C.     Article  1  of  the Certificate of Designation is hereby deleted and
replaced  with  the  following  text:

     "There is hereby created a series of preferred stock consisting of
     5,316,704 shares and designated as the Series C Convertible Preferred Stock
     (the "Preferred Stock"), having the voting powers, preferences, relative,
     participating, limitations, qualifications, option and other special rights
     and the qualifications, limitations and restrictions thereof that are set
     forth below."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Bluebook International Holding Company has caused
this Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Designation to be signed by Mark
A. Josipovich, a duly authorized officer of the Corporation, on December 18,
2002.

                                           THE BLUEBOOK INTERNATIONAL HOLDING
                                           COMPANY

                                           /s/ Mark A. Josipovich
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Mark A. Josipovich
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       22
<PAGE>
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the name of one individual and one entity whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR Part 515).

# DATES:

The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN list”) of the individual and entity identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR part 515), is effective on March 2, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220,                         *tel.:*                         202/622-2420.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic and Facsimile Availability

                    This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available at OFAC's Web site (                    *http://www.treas.gov/​ofac*) or via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on-demand service at (202) 622-0077.                

## Background

On March 2, 2010, OFAC removed from the SDN list the individual and entity listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR part 515):

1. FUENTES COBA, Fernando, Cozumel, Mexico (individual) [CUBA].

2. AMERICAN AIR WAYS CHARTERS, INC., 1840 West 49th Street, Hialeah, FL [CUBA].

      ( print page 12001)    
Dated: March 2, 2010.

Adam J. Szubin,

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

[FR Doc. 2010-4901 Filed 3-11-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P