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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 106 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 106

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Concurrent resolution permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol 
for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance 
                      of victims of the Holocaust.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 106

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used from 8 o'clock 
ante meridiem until 3 o'clock post meridiem on April 16, 1996, for a 
ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of 
victims of the Holocaust. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall 
be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of 
the Capitol may prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 19, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 35.1




Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation









NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION




OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


The undersigned, Mark Kaczynski, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:
  (1)           The undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the period October 14, 2015 through March 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 14, 2015 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2015-C Owner Trust, to be conducted under his supervision; and
  (2)           To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
  This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed securities.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 15th day of June, 2016.




/s/ Mark Kaczynski_________________


Mark Kaczynski


President and Chief Executive Officer
AAM-12-171-E February 7, 2012 Exemption No. 10059A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0396

Mr. Jeff Veers Duffy’s Aircraft Sales and Leasing (d.b.a. Aviation on Demand, LLC)

400 West 29 th Street Marshfield, WI 54449

Dear Mr. Veers:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10059. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated January 13, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Duffy’s Aircraft Sales and Leasing (also d.b.a. Aviation on Demand, LLC) (Duffy’s Aircraft Sales and Leasing) for an extension of Exemption No. 10059, as amended. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Duffy’s Aircraft Sales and Leasing, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Duffy’s Aircraft Sales and Leasing.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10059 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Duffy’s Aircraft Sales and L easing are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Duffy’s Aircraft Sales and Leasing part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 10059, as amended, to May 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
----

Notification of a request under Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC

(2006/C 298/07)

Request from a Member State

On 20 November 2006 the Commission received a request under Article 30(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The first working day following receipt of the request was 21 November 2006.

The request, from Denmark, concerns mail services relating to parcels in Denmark. Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC stipulates that the Directive shall not apply if the activity in question is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted. Assessment of these conditions shall be made exclusively under Directive 2004/17/EC and without prejudice to application of the rules on competition.

The Commission has a three-month period from 21 November 2006, i.e. until 21 February 2007, within which to take a decision on this request.

The third subparagraph of Article 30(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC applies. Consequently, the period within which the Commission must take a decision may be extended by one month. Such an extension would be subject to publication.

----

(1)OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1. Directive as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1874/2004 (OJ L 326, 29.10.2004, p. 17).

----
# SERVE D MARC H 4 , 201 0 U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
I N TH E MATTE RO F GOJE T AIRLINES , LL C FA A DOCKE T NO
. CP10CE000 4 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DMSNo
. FAA-2010-019 0

NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofore designateda s Cas e No
. 2008CE030141 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC
. Goodwin
. Al l future pleading s an d othe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do n th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r person s o n th e attache dServic e List
. 

# ^a.,,^ ^

^ J 

### li e A
. Yoder/ ^ / Chie f Administrativ e Lawjwig e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP10CE000 4 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Mr
. Richar dA
. Leac h GoJe t Airlines , LLC , Responden t 1149 5 Navai dRoad , Suit e 30 3 St
. Louis , M O 6304 4 Davi dJ
. A
. Haye s III , Respondent' s Counse l Vice-Presiden t

& Genera l Counse l Tran s State s Holdings , Inc
. 1149 5 Navai dRoa d Bridgeton , M O 6304 4 TEL : 314-222-431 6 FAX: 314-222-431 1 Davi dB
. Kessler , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l Central Region , ACE- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n DO T Buildin g 90 1 Locust , Roo m50 6 Kansa s City , M O 64106-264 1 TEL : 816-329-376 3 FAX : 816-329-377 1 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX: 202-366-753 6

' Service was by U.S
. Mail
. For servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , DC 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Doclce t Clerk, AGC-430
.
Document Control Office (7 407 M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA East Building , Room E6428 (202-564-8930) 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Attention: TSCA Section 4 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112 

To Whom It May Concern: 

!i sOCMA 

Society of Chemica Manufacturers & Affiliates 

July 6, 2015 

RE: Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Third Group of Chemicals. Federal 

Register 76 (204), 65385-65410, October 21, 2011. 

1-Propanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-3-(2-propen-1-yloxy)-, sodium salt (1: 1) (CAS No. 52556-42-0) 

Submission of Final Reports 

The COPS-1 Consortium , a cost-sharing consortium formed and managed by the Society of Chemical 

Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), submits these two final reports to satisfy the testing requirements of the 

subject test rule for 1-propanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-3-(2-propen-1-yloxy)-, sodium salt (1 : 1) (CAS No. 

52556-42-0), also known as COPS-1 . 

On June 16, 2014 the COPS-1 Consortium submitted a new test plan to respond to a request from 

EPA's Dr. Paul Lewis on April 28, 2014 to repeat the gene mutation and chromosome aberration studies. The 

results of those tests had been submitted earlier (August 28, 2013) but were found by EPA reviewers to be 

inadequate to satisfy the HPV 3 test rule. The Consortium agreed to repeat those studies accordingly. 

The final reports for those repeat studies are submitted here: 

• Gene Mutations: Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test (in vitro): 40 CFR 799.9510 (OECD471 ). 

• Mammalian (chromosomal damage): In vitro mammalian chromosome aberration, 40 CFR 

799.9537 (OECD473) . 

..1 ChemStewards 

APROGRAMOFSQCMA 1850 M St ~W Surt(' /00 ·W~sh ngton :::>e 200lb 'i8 0 • T I 201 721 4100 • F x 202 296 812C • www. ow11 
Members of the COPS-1 consortium are the following companies : 

AkzoNobel Surface Chemistry LLC 

Ashland Inc. 

Bimax Inc. 

GE Water & Process Technologies 

Solvay USA, Inc. 

SOCMA 

These submissions should satisfy the requirements of the above-listed companies to be in compliance 

with the subject test rule. For further information or questions, please contact the undersigned directly at 202-

721-4154 or helmest@socma.com. 

Cc: Dr. John Schaeffer 

C. Tucker Helmes, Ph.D. 

Executive Director 

COPS-1 Consortium 

A PROGRAM Of SOCMA 18SC t"' St NW Su tl. 100 • Wa h1115t DC. 20036 5810 • C'' lC2 121 4100 • fu 202 296 8120 • www.soc
39611.

#### BROYLES v. JOHNSON

Decided September 5, 1962

Rehearing denied October 1, 1962.

*Jack Broyles,*for plaintiff in error.

*Herbert Johnson,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. Count 1 of the petition in the *665present case has attached thereto as an exhibit the petition and decision of this court in the case of *Broyles v. Johnson,*99 Ga. App. 69 (107 SE2d 851). In that case and in count 1 of the present case after the equitable feature was eliminated by amendment, the plaintiff was seeking to recover from a stockholder, in an action at law, a share of profits of a corporation where no dividends had been declared. Under the decision in that casé the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing such count of plaintiff’s petition.

2. Count 2 of the petition in the present case seeks to recover the assignee’s interest in corporate stock assigned as security to the defendant and sold by the sheriff to satisfy a judgment obtained by the defendant here against the plaintiff’s assignor. It is alleged that the sheriff’s sale was void because the levy on such stock was “made on March 28, 1957, and that defendant did not file and have recorded his reassignment for levy and sale until April 4, 1957.”

This count does not allege how the levy on the stock was made, nor is it contended that such levy did not follow the procedure for levying on stock of a domestic corporation. Therefore, it must be presumed that the levy and sale were in accordance with *Code*§§ 39-123 and 39-124. “The statute provides a method by which shares in a bank or other corporation may be seized and sold under levy of an execution. . . Such levy is accomplished by giving notice thereof to the defendant in execution, if his residence be known, and also the officers or agent of the corporation in the county where the levy is made. A purchaser at the sale under such levy is entitled to a certificate of his purchase, which on presentation to the officers of the corporation, shall authorize a transfer of the stock to him.” *Weaver v. Tuten,*144 Ga. 8, 9 (85 SE 1048). The cases relied upon by the plaintiff to support the contention that the sale was void because the defendant failed to have his reassignment for levy and sale recorded until after the levy was made refer to sales of realty and not to corporate stock (a chose in action), which would not be subject to levy and sale except for the procedure authorized by the General Assembly. See *Fourth Nat. Bank of Macon v. Swift & Co.,*160 Ga. 372, 375 (127 SE 729), and citations. The plaintiff’s petition did not raise any question as to adverse claims to *666the fund derived from the sale of the stock, nor does the plaintiff’s petition seek to assert that his title, as assignee, was such that a proper levy on the stock would not lie.

The sale was not void for the reason alleged in count 2 of the petition, and the trial court did not err in sustaining the defendant’s general demurrers to such count.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
The Gehl Company Retirement Income Plan "B" is amended in the following
respects:

     1.   Section 2.01(p) is amended by the addition of the following at the end
          thereof: A "leased employee" for this purpose is any person (other
          than a common law employee of the Company) who, pursuant to an
          agreement between the Company and any other person, has performed
          services for the Company (or for the Company and related persons
          determined in accordance with Code Section 414(n)(6)) on a
          substantially full-time basis for a period of at least one year, if
          such services are performed under the primary direction of or control
          by the Company.

     2.   Section 5.09(b) is amended by revising the first sentence thereof to
          read as follows: For purposes of converting from a periodic form of
          payment to a lump sum form of payment under Section 5.08 or 10.06
          hereof, the present value shall be based upon the applicable mortality
          table (i.e., prior to December 31, 2002, the 1983 Group Mortality
          Table blended 50% male and 50% female and after December 30, 2002, the
          table specified by the Internal Revenue Service from time to time) and
          using the applicable interest rate pursuant to Code Section 417(e)(3)
          for the month of November preceding the Plan Year in which the
          distribution occurs.

     3.   Section 10.10 is amended by the addition of the following at the end
          thereof:

          For this purpose, "compensation" shall mean compensation as determined
          pursuant to Treasury Regulations section 1.415-2(d)(11)(i), increased
          by any salary reductions pursuant to Code Section 125, 132(f), and
          402(e)(3).

     4.   Section 10.12 is amended by the addition of the following at the end
          thereof:

          The definition of "compensation" in Section 10.10 shall apply
          retroactively from and after January 1, 1998 (January 1, 2000 with
          respect to Code Section 132(f)).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 27, 2010 

y0419 

Order 

 

April 27, 2010 

139754 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139754 

 COA: 291644 

Wayne CC: 95-000820-01 

FLOYD PHILLIP ALFORD, a/k/a 

FLOYD PHILLIP ALFRED, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 27, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
#### Samuel J. Hodge *v.*Frederick G. Reincke, Warden, Connecticut State Prison

*8. William Bromson,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*George D. Stoughton,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellant (defendant).

Argued March. 3

decided March 3, 1964

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is granted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernardo HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50680.

D.C. No. CR-99-03677-H.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*308Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 13, 2002.

Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Bernardo Hernandez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 48-month sentence for importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez first contends 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are facially unconstitutional. This argument is precluded by *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 960) and *United States v. Varela-Rivera,*279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 952).

Hernandez next contends 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 require the government to plead and prove his knowledge of the drug quantity and type. This argument is precluded by *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
§ 1.691(b)-1 Allowance of deductions and credit in respect to decedents. ( a ) Under section 691(b) the expenses, interest, and taxes described in sections 162, 163, 164, and 212 for which the decedent (or a prior decedent) was liable, which were not properly allowable as a deduction in his last taxable year or any prior taxable year, are allowed when paid: ( 1 ) As a deduction by the estate; or
( 2 ) If the estate was not liable to pay such obligation, as a deduction by the person who by bequest, devise, or inheritance from the decedent or by reason of the death of the decedent acquires, subject to such obligation, an interest in property of the decedent (or the prior decedent). Similar treatment is given to the foreign tax credit provided by section 33. For the purposes of subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, the right to receive an amount of gross income in respect of a decedent is considered property of the decedent; on the other hand, it is not necessary for a person, otherwise within the provisions of subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, to receive the right to any income in respect of a decedent. Thus, an heir who receives a right to income in respect of a decedent (by reason of the death of the decedent) subject to any income tax imposed by a foreign country during the decedent's life, which tax must be satisfied out of such income, is entitled to the credit provided by section 33 when he pays the tax. If a decedent who reported income by use of the cash receipts and disbursements method owned real property on which accrued taxes had become a lien, and if such property passed directly to the heir of the decedent in a jurisdiction in which real property does not become a part of a decedent's estate, the heir, upon paying such taxes, may take the same deduction under section 164 that would be allowed to the decedent if, while alive, he had made such payment.
( b ) The deduction for percentage depletion is allowable only to the person (described in section 691(a)(1)) who receives the income in respect of the decedent to which the deduction relates, whether or not such person receives the property from which such income is derived. Thus, an heir who (by reason of the decedent's death) receives income derived from sales of units of mineral by the decedent (who reported income by use of the cash receipts and disbursements method) shall be allowed the deduction for percentage depletion, computed on the gross income from such number of units as if the heir had the same economic interest in the property as the decedent. Such heir need not also receive any interest in the mineral property other than such income. If the decedent did not compute his deduction for depletion on the basis of percentage depletion, any deduction for depletion to which the decedent was entitled at the date of his death would be allowable in computing his taxable income for his last taxable year, and there can be no deduction in respect of the decedent by any other person for such depletion.
(logo) usbank®

 

Global Corporate Trust

60 Livingston Avenue

EP-MN-WS3D

Saint Paul, MN 55107

 

usbank.com

 

 

**Annual Statement of Compliance**

**Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust2015-C25**

 

*VIA: EMAIL*

 

Banc of America Merrill LynchCommercial Mortgage Inc. 

One Bryant Park

New York, New York 10036 

Attention: Leland F. Bunch,III 

*leland.f.bunch@baml.com*

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc.

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10020 

Attention: Jane Lam 

*jane.lam@morganstanley.com*

 

Eightfold Real Estate Capital,L.P. 

1111 Lincoln Road, Suite 802 

Miami Beach, Florida 33139 

Attention: Brian Tageson 

*btageson@eightfoldcapital.com*

 

*17g5informationprovider@usbank.com*

 

Re:       Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as ofOctober 1, 2015 (the “Agreement”) between Banc of America Merrill Lynch CommercialMortgage Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as SpecialServicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor and U.S. Bank NationalAssociation, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar,Authenticating Agent and Custodian.

 

I, Thomas C. Campbell, aSenior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian, as acertifying servicer hereby certify that:

 

(1)    A review of the activities of theCustodian during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”)and of the performance of the Custodian under the Agreement has been made undermy supervision; and

 

(2)    To the best of my knowledge, based onsuch review, the Custodian has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreementin all material respects throughout such Reporting Period.

 

Capitalized terms used but notdefined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.

 

 

Date: February 22, 2022

 

U.S. Bank NationalAssociation, as Custodian 

By: /s/ Thomas C. Campbell

Thomas C. Campbell 

Senior Vice President