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

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permits denied under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits denied under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On May 1, 2009, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of a permit application received. The permit application from Stacy Kim was denied on July 23, 2009.                

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-18107 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### § 1.651(a)-4 Charitable purposes.

A trust is not considered to be a trust which may pay, permanently set aside, or use any amount for charitable, etc., purposes for any taxable year for which it is not allowed a charitable, etc., deduction under section 642(c). Therefore, a trust with a remainder to a charitable organization is not disqualified for treatment as a simple trust if either (a) the remainder is subject to a contingency, so that no deduction would be allowed for capital gains or other amounts added to corpus as amounts permanently set aside for a charitable, etc., purpose under section 642 (c), or (b) the trust receives no capital gains or other income added to corpus for the taxable year for which such a deduction would be allowed.
39363.

#### BRAGG v. THE STATE.

Decided March 2, 1962.

*0. Frank Brant,*for plaintiff in error.

*Cohen Anderson, Solicitor-General,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. Special ground 1 of the amended motion for new trial, which is but an amplification of the general grounds complains that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury upon the contentions of the defendant, “that he had a right to shoot off his gun, as he did, for the purpose of scaring off such trespassers, and that he claimed he did not intend to shoot anyone and especially the prosecutor whom he claimed not to know was present.” The record reveals that the trial court amply charged the juiy with reference to what constitutes the offense of unlawfully shooting at another; also under what circumstances the defendant would be justified in shooting at another. The juiy, always the triers of the facts *443in such cases, applying these instructions to the facts in the case, found the defendant guilty. Accordingly, there is no merit in special ground 1 of the amended motion for new trial.

2. Special ground 2 of the amended motion for new trial complains that the trial court erred in charging the jury as follows: “If you should reach the conclusion that he is not guilty of *any*crime . . . you should acquit him.” In the first sentence of the court’s charge to the jury and throughout the entire charge the jury was instructed repeatedly that the bill of indictment upon which the defendant was being tried charged the defendant with the offense of unlawfully shooting at another; also the trial court correctly charged the jury that the State must prove, and the jury must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and if not so proved it would be the jury’s duty to acquit. At most this was a mere lapsus linguae on the part of the trial court and considering the charge as a whole could not reasonably have misled the jury. See *Morton v. State,*86 Ga. App. 764 (2) (72 SE2d 548), and citations. Accordingly there is no merit in this ground for assignment of error.

3. The defendant contends that his motion for new trial should have been granted on the general grounds because: 1, the evidence failed to show that the defendant intended to shoot Delcom H. Parker; and 2, failed to show that the defendant knew Delcom H. Parker was present at the time of the shooting. Whether or not the defendant intended to fire the shot, or was justified in firing same are questions for a jury. See *Wesley v. State,*84 Ga. App. 649, 650 (67 SE2d 155). Also this court in *Beddingfield v. State,*13 Ga. App. 623, 624 (79 SE 589), has held it is no defense that the accused did not know the identity of the person at whom he shot.

There is sufficient competent evidence in the record to support the verdict and the trial court did not err in overruling the general grounds and both special grounds of the defendant’s motion for new trial. *Adler v. Adler,*207 Ga. 394, 405 (61 SE2d 824).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant toSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersignedPresident & Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certifies, that to their knowledge:

1)              the Company’s Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or78*o*(d)); and

2)              theinformation contained in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/Martin J. Reid                       |   |                    | /s/William J. Schmidt |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
| Martin J. Reid                          |   | William J. Schmidt      |
| President & Chief Executive Officer |   | Chief Financial Officer |
| Date: Novembr 13, 2006                  |   | Date: November 13, 2006 |

 

1

----
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 60306 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Lakeith M. Faulkner,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:22

- CR

- 141

- 1

**___________ ___________________**  Before **Willett, Duncan,** and **Ramirez,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Lakeith M. Faulkner appeals his guilty plea conviction and 62

- month sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He argues that his counsel in the dist rict court provided ineffective assistance prior to the guilty plea hearing and sentencing by failing to adequately investigate loss and restitution. He further asserts that his counsel failed to : request a downward

**_____________________**

* This opin ion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 9, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-60306 Document: 60-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2024No. 23

- 60306

2 departure based on his diminished capacity , raise a certain challenge to the gross receipts sentencing enhancement , and provide evidence in support of the abuse of trust enhancement. Although Faulkner made all egations of ineffective assistance of counsel in a post

- sentencing motion, the district court neither h e ld a hearing

nor issue d a ruling on th ese issues . As a result, the record is not sufficiently developed to enable this court to “fairly evaluate” the m erits of Faulkner’s ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal. United States v. Jones , 969 F.3d 192, 200 (5th Cir. 2020); see United States v. Aguilar , 503 F.3d 431, 436 (5th Cir. 2007). We therefore decline to consider Faulkner’s ineffective assistance claim at this time without prejudice to Faulkner’s right to raise that claim in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Jones , 969 F.3d at 200.
**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 23-60306 Document: 60-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2024
Exhibit
10.51


Summary of Non-Employee Director
Compensation


 


On February 27, 2007, the
board of directors (the “board”) of Capital Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted
a revised compensation arrangement for each non-employee director effective as
of January 1, 2007.  The compensation
arrangement provides for an annual retainer of $75,000 payable either in cash
or deferred stock units pursuant to elections made by such directors under the
Company’s incentive stock plans.


 


The Company reimburses
directors for actual expenses incurred in the performance of their service as
directors, including travel expenses incurred in attending board and committee
meetings.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

RE: Annual Statement ofCompliance for MAD 2015-11MD Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of September 6, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)           A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of itsperformance 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 hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

/s/ Jeffrey Coletta

Jeffrey Coletta

Assistant Secretary

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Helaine M. Kaplan, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reportson Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by thisreport on Form 10-K of the COMM 2015-CCRE27 Mortgage Trust (the "ExchangeAct periodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodicreports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution,servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for theperiod covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliancestatements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and exceptas disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestationreports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included asan exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Anymaterial instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonablyrelied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as SpecialServicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee and CertificateAdministrator, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian, ParkBridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, KeyBank National Association,as Primary Servicer, Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank, asPrimary Servicer, Computershare Trust Company, National Association, asServicing Function Participant for the Certificate Administrator, ComputershareTrust Company, National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for theCustodian, KeyBank National Association, as PrimaryServicer for the 11 Madison Avenue Mortgage Loan, KeyBank National Association,as Special Servicer for the 11 Madison Avenue Mortgage Loan, Wilmington Trust,National Association, as Trustee for the 11 Madison Avenue Mortgage Loan, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian for the 11 Madison AvenueMortgage Loan, and Computershare Trust Company, National Association, asServicing Function Participant for the Custodian for the 11 Madison Avenue Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 12, 2024

 

 

/s/ Helaine M. Kaplan

Helaine M. Kaplan

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of thedepositor)
EX-10.61



 





EXHIBIT 10.61




AMENDMENT TO MERGE THE




KEYCORP SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN




INTO THE




KEYCORP SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN



WHEREAS, KeyCorp established the KeyCorp Supplemental Retirement Plan (“Plan”) to provide a
nonqualified supplemental retirement benefit to a select group of management or highly compensated
employees as described in Section 201(2), 301(3) and 401(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, and



WHEREAS, in conjunction with the enactment of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended, KeyCorp elected to freeze all future accruals to the Plan as of December 31, 2004, and
to establish a KeyCorp Second Supplemental Retirement Plan that in large part mirrors the terms and
conditions of the Plan while also meeting the requirements of Section 409A of the Code, and



WHEREAS, in maintaining the Plan and the KeyCorp Second Supplemental Retirement Plan KeyCorp has
been required to maintain duplicate administration structures for each respective plan, and



WHEREAS, to prevent this duplication of administration and the associated confusion associated with
multiple plans it is desired that the Plan be merged into the KeyCorp Second Supplemental
Retirement Plan, and that the Plan cease to exist separate and apart from the KeyCorp Second
Supplemental Retirement Plan.



NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended to add a new Article XII to the Plan, to be effective as
of December 31, 2006, to read in its entirety as follows:




“ARTICLE XII

MERGER INTO THE KEYCORP SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN





	 	12.1	 	Merger of the Plan. Effective December 31, 2006 the Plan is
hereby merged into and made a part of the KeyCorp Second Supplemental
Retirement Plan, and all benefits that have accrued under the Plan shall be
merged into and shall become a part of the KeyCorp Second Supplemental
Retirement Plan.”





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, KeyCorp has caused this Amendment to the Plan to be executed by its duly
authorized officer as of the 21st day of December, 2006 to be effective as written
above.




KEYCORP




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	                       /s/ Thomas Helfrich
 	 
	 	 	Thomas Helfrich 	 
	 	 	Executive Vice President
- 000100fc
- 000200fi
- 00030001
- 00040002
- 00050003
- 00060004
- 00070000
- 00080000
- 00090000
- 00100000
- 00110005
- 00120006
- 00130007
- 00140008
- 00150000
- 00160000
- 00170009
- 00180010
- 00190000
- 00200000
- 00210011
- 00220012
- 00230000
- 00240000
- 00250013
- 00260014
- 00270000
- 00280000
- 00290000
- 00300000
- 00310015
- 00320016
- 00330000
- 00340000
- 00350017
- 00360018
- 003700bi
- 003800bc
§ 1.651(a)-1 Simple trusts; deduction for distributions; in general. Section 651 is applicable only to a trust the governing instruments of which: ( a ) Requires that the trust distribute all of its income currently for the taxable year, and
( b ) Does not provide that any amounts may be paid, permanently set aside, or used in the taxable year for the charitable, etc., purposes specified in section 642(c),
and does not make any distribution other than of current income. A trust to which section 651 applies is referred to in this part as a “simple” trust. Trusts subject to section 661 are referred to as “complex” trusts. A trust may be a simple trust for one year and a complex trust for another year. It should be noted that under section 651 a trust qualifies as a simple trust in a taxable year in which it is required to distribute all its income currently and makes no other distributions, whether or not distributions of current income are in fact made. On the other hand a trust is not a complex trust by reason of distributions of amounts other than income unless such distributions are in fact made during the taxable year, whether or not they are required in that year.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

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

The  undersigned,  Robert A. Bourne,  the  President and Treasurer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund VIII, Ltd. (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  of the  Partnership's  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  March 31, 2003 (the  "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 Partnership.



Date:  May 9, 2003                        /s/ Robert A. Bourne
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Name:  Robert A. Bourne
                                          Title:     President and Treasurer

                                          A  signed  original  of  this  written
                                          statement  required by Section 906 has
                                          been provided to CNL Income Fund VIII,
                                          Ltd.  and  will  be  retained  by  CNL
                                          Income Fund VIII,  Ltd. and  furnished
                                          to   the   Securities   and   Exchange
                                          Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 1.471-9 Inventories of acquiring corporations.

For additional rules in the case of certain corporate acquisitions specified in section 381(a), see section 381(c)(5) and the regulations thereunder.

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11727, Nov. 26, 1960]
§ 1.527-4 Special rules for computation of political organization taxable income. ( a ) *In general.* Political organization taxable income is determined according to the provisions of section 527(b) and the rules set forth in this section.
( b ) *Limitation on capital losses.* If for any taxable year a political organization has a net capital loss, the rules of sections 1211(a) and 1212(a) apply.
( c ) *Allowable deductions* — ( 1 ) *In general.* To be deductible in computing political organization taxable income, expenses, depreciation, and similar items must not only qualify as deductions allowed by chapter 1 of the Code, but must also be directly connected with the production of political organization taxable income.
( 2 ) *Directly connected with defined.* To be *directly connected with* the production of political organization taxable income, an item of deduction must have a proximate and primary relationship to the production of such income and have been incurred in the production of such income. Items of deduction attributable solely to items of political organization taxable income are proximately and primarily related to such income. Whether an item of deduction is incurred in the production of political organization taxable income is determined on the basis of all the facts and circumstances of each case.
( 3 ) *Dual use of facilities or personnel.* Expenses, depreciation, and similar items that are attributable to the production of exempt function income and political organization taxable income shall be allocated between the two on a reasonable and consistent basis. For example, where facilities are used both for an exempt function of the organization and for the production of political organization taxable income, expenses, depreciation, and similar items attributable to such facilities (for example, items of overhead) shall be allocated between the two uses of a reasonable and consistent basis. Similarly, where personnel are employed both for an exempt function and for the production of political organization taxable income, expenses and similar items attributable to such personnel (for example, items of salary) shall be allocated between the activities on a reasonable and consistent basis. The portion of any such item so allocated to the production of political organization taxable income is directly connected with such income and is allowable as a deduction in computing political organization taxable income to the extent that it qualifies as an item of deduction allowed by chapter 1 of the Code. Thus, for example, assume that X, a political organization, pays its manager a salary of $10,000 a year and that it derives political organization taxable income. If 10 percent of the manager's time during the year is devoted to deriving X's gross income (other than exempt function income), a deduction of $1,000 (10 percent of $10,000) would generally be allowable for purposes of computing X's political organization taxable income.
[T.D. 7744, 45 FR 85733, Dec. 30, 1980]