alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. J. Res. 112

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

Joint Resolution

Providing for the appointment of Louis Gerstner as a citizen regent of the Board

of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance

with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States

(20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress,

occurring by reason of the resignation of Ira Michael Heyman

of California on May 27, 1994, is filled by the appointment of

Louis Gerstner of Connecticut. The appointment is for a term of

six years and shall take effect on the date on which this joint

resolution becomes law.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group,Inc.:

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in theaccompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB ServicingCriteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation (“Midland” or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteriaset forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission'sRegulation AB for all transactions serviced on the *Enterprise!* LoanManagement System (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2016 and for the yearthen 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), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are notapplicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to thePlatform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with theservicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management'sassertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestationstandards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such otherprocedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examinationincluded testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprisethe Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform,and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions andperformed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions andservicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising fromerrors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may haveaffected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company duringthe period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legaldetermination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that Midland compliedwith the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the yearended December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all materialrespects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 17, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut Street, Suite1300, Kansas City, MO 64106*

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

* *
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 USC 1350, As AdoptedPursuant toSection 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of ProCyte Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, I, John F. Clifford, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 USC Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

1.               the Form 10-Q fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.               the information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  November 13, 2003 | By:    | /s/ John F. Clifford                                      |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   |                                                      |
|                               |   | John F. Clifford, President and CEO,  ProCyte Corporation |

 

1

----
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Fl  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

ReferenceisherebymadetothatcertainPoolingandServicingAgreementdated as of August 1, 2016, by and amongWELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGESECURITIES,INC.,as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer,RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONALASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and PARKBRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset RepresentationsReviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2016-BNK1 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision,and

 

2.       Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executedthis Certificate as of the 28th dayof February2018.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50280

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUCILLE CHRISTIE BLAKLEY;

DAVID PORRAS,

Defendants-Appellants.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-98-CR-92-3

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

February 23, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Porras argues that the district court clearly erred in

allowing his bankruptcy attorney to testify at trial because it

violated the attorney-client privilege. Lucille Christie Blakley

adopts this argument. 

The district court did not clearly err in allowing the

attorney to testify because the Government made a prima facie

showing that Porras and his codefendants sought counsel’s legal

representation in order to further their illegal and fraudulent
No. 00-50280

-2-

conduct. Thus, the defendants’ attorney-client privilege was lost

under the crime or fraud exception to that rule. See United States

v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, (5th Cir. 1986).

Blakley argues that the district court abused its discretion

in denying her motion to take the deposition of her fugitive

codefendant William Edmiston pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(a),

which provides that the district court may order the taking of a

deposition in a criminal case if it finds that exceptional

circumstances exist.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Blakley’s motion for the deposition. The district court concluded

based on its prior experience with Edmiston in civil proceedings

that Edmiston would not be a credible witness and also determined

that the deposition would expose the prosecutors to an unnecessary

risk of harm and would cause the Government to incur substantial

expense. Further, the record reflects that Blakley’s prior

testimony in civil proceedings, which was reviewed at the criminal

trial, showed her knowledge of the fraudulent activity, and clearly

outweighed any probative value that would have been given to the

testimony of the fugitive codefendant. Blakley failed to show the

existence of exceptional circumstances warranting the deposition.

See United States v. Aggarwal, 17 F.3d 737, 741 (5th Cir. 1994). 

AFFIRMED.
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 HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, JeanPierre Dallaire, Principal Financial and Accounting 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, to the best of his knowledge, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 11, 2009



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jean-Pierre Dallaire                  
|Jean-Pierre Dallaire                      
|Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
§ 31.3306(j)-1 State, United States, and citizen. ( a ) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to remuneration paid after 1960 for services performed after 1960) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
( b ) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term “United States”, when used in a geographical sense, means the several States (including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), and the District of Columbia. When used in the regulations in this subpart with respect to remuneration paid after 1960 for services performed after 1960, the term “United States” also includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico when the term is used in a geographical sense, and the term “citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
[T.D. 6658, 28 FR 6641, June 27, 1963]
----

Action brought on 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-444/06)

(2006/C 326/76)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent, C. Fernandez Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, lawyers)

Defendan: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that the Spanish rule on the review of public contracts is not consistent with Directive 89/665 according to the interpretation given by the Court of Justice in Case C-81/98 Alcatel Austria and Others [1999] ECR I-7671.

In particular, the Spanish legislation:

does not provide for a mandatory period within which the contracting authority has to notify the decision on the award of the contract to all the bidders,

does not provide for a mandatory waiting period between the decision on the award of the contract and its performance and,

allows an annulled contract to continue to have legal effect.

----

(1)OJ 1989 L 395, p.33.

----
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 5

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms in defense of life or liberty and in the

pursuit of all other legitimate endeavors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. CRANE (for himself and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the

right of all Americans to keep and bear arms in defense

of life or liberty and in the pursuit of all other legitimate

endeavors.

Whereas the second amendment to the Constitution of the

United States conveys an inalienable right to all American citizens, such right occupying the same preferred position as all other constitutional rights;

Whereas unconscionable abridgements of the second amendment have been undertaken over the years by State and

local governmental bodies, and have been allowed by the

courts to stand uncorrected; and
2

•HCON 5 IH

Whereas the Framers of the second amendment to the Constitution and those who ratified the second amendment

intended that the individual retain the right to keep and

bear arms in order to protect life, liberty, and property

and to protect our Nation from those who would attempt

to destroy our freedom: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 Constitution provides that all individual citizens have the

4 right to keep and bear arms, which right supersedes the

5 power and authority of any government.

Æ
§ 1.674(d)-2 Limitations on exceptions in section 674 (b), (c), and (d). ( a ) *Power to remove trustee.* A power in the grantor to remove, substitute, or add trustees (other than a power exercisable only upon limited conditions which do not exist during the taxable year, such as the death or resignation of, or breach of fiduciary duty by, an existing trustee) may prevent a trust from qualifying under section 674 (c) or (d). For example, if a grantor has an unrestricted power to remove an independent trustee and substitute any person including himself as trustee, the trust will not qualify under section 674 (c) or (d). On the other hand if the grantor's power to remove, substitute, or add trustees is limited so that its exercise could not alter the trust in a manner that would disqualify it under section 674 (c) or (d), as the case may be, the power itself does not disqualify the trust. Thus, for example, a power in the grantor to remove or discharge an independent trustee on the condition that he substitute another independent trustee will not prevent a trust from qualifying under section 674(c).
( b ) *Power to add beneficiaries.* The exceptions described in section 674 (b) (5), (6), and (7), (c), and (d), are not applicable if any person has a power to add to the beneficiary or beneficiaries or to a class of beneficiaries designated to receive the income or corpus, except where the action is to provide for after-born or after-adopted children. This limitation does not apply to a power held by a beneficiary to substitute other beneficiaries to succeed to his interest in the trust (so that he would be an adverse party as to the exercise or nonexercise of that power). For example, the limitation does not apply to a power in a beneficiary of a nonspendthrift trust to assign his interest. Nor does the limitation apply to a power held by any person which would qualify as an exception under section 674(b)(3) (relating to testamentary powers).
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.7507-8 Procedure during immunity. ( a ) *Statements to be filed.* As long as complete or partial immunity is claimed, a bank within section 7507(b) shall file with each income tax return a statement as required by § 301.7507-7, in duplicate, and shall also file such additional statements as the district director may require. Whether or not additional statements shall be required, and the frequency thereof, will depend on the circumstances, including the financial status and apparent prospects of the bank, and the time which is available for assessment and collection. If a copy of an agreement or document has once been filed, a copy of the same agreement or document need not again be filed with a subsequent statement, if it is shown by the subsequent statement, when and where and with what return the copy was filed. In case of amendment a copy of the amendment must be filed with the return for the taxable year in which the amendment is made.
( b ) *Failure to file.* Failure of a bank to file any required statement will be treated as indicating that the bank is not entitled to immunity.
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6511(a)-1 Period of limitation on filing claim. ( a ) In the case of any tax (other than a tax payable by stamp): ( 1 ) If a return is filed, a claim for credit or refund of an overpayment must be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed or within 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later.
( 2 ) If no return is filed, the claim for credit or refund of an overpayment must be filed by the taxpayer within 2 years from the time the tax was paid.
( b ) In the case of any tax payable by means of a stamp, a claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of such tax must be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the tax was paid. For provisions relating to redemption of unsued stamps, see section 6805.
( c ) For limitations on allowance of credit or refund, special rules, and exceptions, see subsections (b) through (e) of section 6511. For limitations in the case of a petition to the Tax Court, see section 6512. For rules as to time return is deemed filed and tax considered paid, see section 6513.
*Northern District*

No. 8424

#### PETER DEL SOLIA v. CAMPBELL SALES CO., dba

Argued_____________________.

Decided: November 9, 1976.

Case tried to *Cullen, J.,*in the Fourth District Court of Eastern Middlesex.

Number: 1157/74.

Present: Cowdrey, P.J.; Flynn, Forte, J.J.

This action is before the Appellate Division on a Petition to Establish a Report.

The action was tried and judgment was entered on December 10, 1975, notices of which were sent to counsel on December 15, 1975. Pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P. 64(c) (ii), a draft report was timely filed. On its face, the draft report complies with Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P. 64(c)(2).

On January 27, 1976, without a hearing which is required by Rule 64(c)(4) (unless the trial justice intends to allow the draft report), the draft report was disallowed without any reasons given therefor. Rule 64(c)(5) requires a justice to “set forth in writing succinctly the facts and reasons for such disallowance”. *Comfort Air Systems, Inc. v. Cacopardo,*Mass. Adv. Sh. (1976) 1209.

Therefore, pursuant to G.L.c. 231, §110 as amended by St. 1973, c. 1114, §198, this matter is returned to the trial justice for a hearing on the draft report pursuant to Dist./Mun. Cts. R. Civ. P. 64.
EXHIBIT 31.2
  
 
 RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I, Blaise B. Bettendorf, certify that:
 
 1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Summit Financial Corporation;
 
 2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.  The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 
 
 
 Date:  May 5, 2004Blaise B. Bettendorf, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer