alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
10.16

Directors’ Compensation for 2007

For fiscal
2007, members of the Board of Directors (other than the Non-Executive
Chairman of the Board) (the ‘‘Directors’’)
shall be paid the following fees for their Board-related
services:


Board Membership Fees.    Each Director
shall be paid an annual fee of $125,000 comprised of an annual cash fee
of $50,000, payable quarterly, and $75,000 of the Company’s
Common Stock issuable under the Company’s 2005 Stock Incentive
Plan and payable after the Company’s 2007 annual meeting of
stockholders. Directors receive reimbursement for out of pocket
expenses incurred in connection with their service as Directors.
Beginning in January  2007, Directors will no longer receive
additional fees for attendance at Board meetings.


Committee
Membership Fees.    In addition to the Board membership fees
specified above, Directors who serve on any Board committees shall be
paid $1,200 per day per Committee meeting attended.


Committee
Chairman Fees.    In addition to the Board membership fees and
the Committee membership fees specified above, Directors who serve as
chairmen of the following Board committees shall be paid as
follows:


Audit
Committee.    The chairman of the Audit Committee shall be
paid an annual fee of
$12,500.


Compensation
Committee.    The chairman of the Compensation Committee
shall be paid an annual fee of
$7,500.


Nominating and Governance
Committee.    The Non-Executive Chairman of the Board
currently serves as the chairman of the Nominating and Corporate
Governance Committee, and accordingly, as described below, does not
receive any additional compensation for this position.

For
fiscal 2007, the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board shall be paid an
annual fee of $210,000, payable monthly, plus $125,000 of the
Company’s Common Stock issuable under the Company’s 2005
Stock Incentive Plan and payable after the Company’s 2007 annual
meeting of stockholders. The Non-Executive Chairman of the Board, who
currently serves as the Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate
Governance Committee, does not receive any additional compensation
associated with his Board service (including for service as chairman of
any Board committee) other than reimbursement for out of pocket
expenses incurred in connection with his
service.
#### THE HARVEY STEEL COMPANY, THE MIDVALE STEEL COMPANY INTERVENING, v. THE UNITED STATES.

[46 C. Cls. R., 298; 227 U. S. R., 165.]

*On the defendant's and the Midvale Steel Company's appeal.*

This is a suit between the same parties and upon the same contract as that reported in 38 C. Cls. R., 662, 681; affirmed, 196 U. S. R., 310; viz, to recover royalties under an express contract for the use of the Harvey process in hardening armor plate. The inventor is the manufacturer who used the process. He seeks to defeat a recovery upon the ground that sand was not packed on the back of the armor plates as a nonearbonaceous material, and hence that the process covered by the claimant’s patent and contract with the defendants was not used.

The court below decides:

I. Where the only difference between the present suit and one previously decided in favor of the claimant is that in former cases the hardening of armor plates was effected by using sand as nonearbonaceous material bn the back of the plates and in the present case carbonaceous material was confined within the brick box inclosing the plates; the change is technical, the use of sand not being essential to the Harvey process.

*506II.That the manufacture of armor plates for the Government was not an infringement of the patent is not a defense which can be set up by the Government under the former decisions of this and the Supreme Court. The Government having received the benefit of the process under its contract with the claimant is liable to the claimant therefor.

III. When the action is upon the contract between a patentee and the Government by the terms of which the Government becomes expressly liable for royalties where the patented process is used in the manufacture of armor plates for one of its vessels, it can not compel the patentee to look for payment to the manufacturer who employed the process.

IV. The court reiterates the principle formally announced in its decision in the previous case that where, by the terms of the contract, the defendants are entitled to a disclosure of the inventor’s process and to his instructions and assistance in the practical application of the invention in whole or in part, deviations therefrom can not be set up as a defense.

The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

February 3, 1913.

Mr. Chief Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

**2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

               

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofNovember 1, 2016 by and among Credit Suisse Commercial Mortgage SecuritiesCorp. as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Certificate Administrator and Wilmington Trust,National Association as Trustee relating to CSAIL 2016-C7 Commercial MortgageTrust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2016-C7 **(CSAIL2016-C7)**

 

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.  All servicingactivities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling andServicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.  A review of theservicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period ofNovember 22, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.  To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ AdamSinger                                 Date: March 1, 2017

Adam Singer, Managing Director
1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Lease Trust 2015-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and
 5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
  Date:  June 23, 2017
 By:
/s/ Mark KaczynskiMark KaczynskiPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofNissan Motor Acceptance Corporation(senior officer in charge of theservicing function)
 10
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 132951 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 132951 COA: 263600 Wayne CC: 04-002090-01 RICHARD BROWN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 28, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 23

- 00323

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 17th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 017

- 342305

- 23

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### O TONIEL 

### H U ERTAS



### , M D

, Appellant

V



### .

B ARBARA 

### K ADOW 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered “ Plaintiff ’ s First Amended Motion to Dismiss a nd/ o r

Stri ke Notice o f Appeal

, ” which was filed by appellee on September 11

, 2023, and

“ Appellant Otoniel Huertas, M.D.’ s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

, ” which was filed on

September 21, 2023. We grant the motion s and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered : September 28, 2023
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.

§ 301.6229(b)-1 Extension by agreement. ( a ) *In general.* Any partnership may authorize any person to extend the period described in section 6229(a) with respect to all partners by filing a statement to that effect with the service center where the partnership return is filed (but, if the notice described in section 6223(a)(1) (beginning of an administrative proceeding) has already been mailed to the tax matters partner, the statement should be filed with the Internal Revenue Service office that mailed such notice). The statement shall— ( 1 ) Provide that it is an authorization for a person other than the tax matters partner to extend the assessment period with respect to all partners;
( 2 ) Identify the partnership and the person being authorized by name, address, and taxpayer identification number;
( 3 ) Specify the partnership taxable year or years for which the authorization is effective; and
( 4 ) Be signed by all persons who were general partners (or, in the case of an LLC, member-managers, as those terms are defined in § 301.6231(a)(7)-2(b)) at any time during the year or years for which the authorization is effective.
( b ) *Effective date.* This section is applicable to partnership taxable years beginning on or after October 4, 2001. For years beginning prior to October 4, 2001, see § 301.6229(b)-1T contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 1, 2001.
[T.D. 8965, 66 FR 50555, Oct. 4, 2001]
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 80

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate the week of April 17–24, 1994, as

Tissue Donor Awareness Week’’.‘‘Nancy Moore Thurmond National Organ and
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 80

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate the week of April 17–24, 1994, as ‘‘Nancy

Moore Thurmond National Organ and Tissue Donor

Awareness Week’’.

Whereas Nancy Moore Thurmond was suddenly taken from

us in the prime of her life;

Whereas in an attempt to honor those causes for which

Nancy Moore Thurmond was associated, namely the

championing of children’s causes;

Whereas a new patient is added to the national patient waiting list for an organ transplant every 20 minutes;

Whereas thousands of lives are saved or significantly improved annually by organ and tissue transplantation; and

Whereas increasing the number of organs which can be transplanted as well as tissues would save American taxpayers

millions of dollars: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the week of April 17–24, 1994, is designated ‘‘Nancy

4 Moore Thurmond National Organ and Tissue Donor

5 Awareness Week’’ and the President is authorized and re6 quested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people
2

•SJ 80 ES

1 of the United States to observe such week with appro2 priate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

Passed the Senate April 19, 1993.

Attest:

Secretary.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 152 (Monday, August 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39946-39948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18964]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 09-24]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 09-24 with attached transmittal and 
policy justification.

    Dated: July 28, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 39947]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10AU09.011


[[Page 39948]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10AU09.012

[FR Doc. E9-18964 Filed 8-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
From: "Carroll, Danny (RTA)" <Danny.carroll@riotinto.com>

To: David Putney/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/21/2011 01:31 PM

Subject: RE: Category HAP spreadsheet

I thought I sent the corrected one but apparently it wasn’t. I’ll get it to you.

The attorney promised me a response yesterday afternoon but we didn’t receive it. I’ll stay on him.

From: Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov ]

Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:44 AM

To: Carroll, Danny (RTA)

Subject: Category HAP spreadsheet

Mr. Carroll,

Did Rio

- Tinto Alcan ever submit a corrected version of the category HAP spreadsheet that Rochelle sent

you a while back (sometime in November 2010 I believe) for the Sebree facility? We cannot seem to find

that s preadsheet. Would you please reply to this email and attach a copy of the corrected category HAP

spreadsheet?

Also, have you heard from your lawyer about the CBI status of the information EPA requested during the

Sebree facility site visit in March 2011? Not trying to harass you about this, but I figured since I was

sending you an email anyway I may as well touch base on that issue as well.

Thanks,

David Putney, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243

- 02

Ph: (919) 541

- 2016 Fax: (919) 541

- 3207

Email: putney.david@epa.gov
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

Section 4 Submission

This is an original submission: This is an amendment:

✔

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that (1) all information entered on this form is

complete and accurate; and (2) any confidentiality claims are true and correct as to that information

for which they have been asserted. Any knowing and willful misinterpretation is subject to criminal

penalty pursuant to 18 USC 1001.

Signature: Official Title:

Regulatory Specialist

Contact Person:

Ann Marie Savini

Email Address:

asavini@harcros.com

Date Signed:

07/17/2014

PART 1 Contact Information

Submission

Information

Submission Type:

TestRules

Form Alias:

Sodium Glucoheptonate

Federal Register Notice:

76 FR 1067

Date Submitted:

07/17/2014

Submitter

Information

Company Name:

HARCROS CHEMICALS

Address:

5200 SPEAKER ROAD

KANSAS CITY, KS, 66106

United States

Contact Person:

Ann Marie Savini

Phone Number:

9136217802

Email Address:

asavini@harcros.com

Technical Contact

Information

CBI

Yes: 	No: 

✔

Company Name:

HARCROS CHEMICALS

Address:

5200 SPEAKER ROAD

KANSAS CITY, KS, 66106

United States

Contact Person:

Ms Ann Marie Savini

Phone Number:

9136217802

Email Address:

asavini@harcros.com

PART 2 Letter Of Intent

Not for Submission
SEC4 Submission Page 2

Chemical

Identification

CASRN:

31138-65-5

CBI

Yes: 	No: 

✔

Chemical Name:

D-gluco-heptonic acid, monosodium salt, (2.xi.)-

Chemical Test Name:

C1

Sponsoring Firms CBI

Yes: 	No: 

✔

Company Name:

Harcros Chemicals

Address:

5200 Speaker Rd.

Kansas City, KS, 66106

United States

Phone Number:

9136217802

Chemicals

PART 3 Chemical - 31138-65-5 : Study Plan

Attached

Document(s)

File Name:

Daphnia.pdf

Attachment Date:

07/17/2014

CBI

Yes: 	No: 

✔

Sanitized Document Upload:

N/A

Effects:

Ecotoxicity

Endpoints:

Short-term toxicity to aquatic

invertebrates

File Name:

Rainbow Trout.pdf

Attachment Date:

07/17/2014

CBI

Yes: 	No: 

✔

Sanitized Document Upload:

N/A

Effects:

Ecotoxicity

Endpoints:

Short-term toxicity to fish

Paperwork Reduction Act: The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) (44 U.S.C. 3501) provides that, when practicable, Federal organizations use electronic forms, electronic filings, and

electronic signatures to conduct official business with the public. EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) (40 CFR part 3), published in the Federal Register on October 13,

2005 (70 FR 59848) (FRL-7977-1)(Ref. 2), provides that any requirement in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to submit a report directly to EPA can be satisfied with an electronic

submission that meets certain conditions once the Agency published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that EPA is prepared to receive certain documents in electronic form. For more

information about CROMERR, go to 

Not for Submission

http://www.epa.gov/cromerr/.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 JUAN R. EDWARDS,

3 Petitioner-Appellant,

4 v. NO. A-1-CA-36045

5 LAUREN A. WRIGHT,

6 Respondent-Appellee,

7 and

8 STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. 

9 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,

10 Intervenor. 

11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY

12 Matthew J. Wilson, District Judge 

13 Juan R. Edwards

14 Santa Fe, NM 

15 Pro Se Appellant

16 David Foster Law Firm, P.C.

17 David R. Foster

18 Albuquerque, NM 

19 for Appellee
2

1 MEMORANDUM OPINION

2 VANZI, Chief Judge.

3 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

4 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

5 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

6 {2} AFFIRMED.

7 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 __________________________________

9 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge

10 WE CONCUR:

11 _________________________________

12 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

13 _________________________________

14 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
###### 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.

#### § 301.7321-1 Seizure of property.

Any property subject to forfeiture to the United States under any provision of the Code may be seized by the district director or assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco, and firearms). Upon seizure of property by the district director he shall notify the assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco, and firearms) for the region wherein the district is located who will take charge of the property and arrange for its disposal or retention under the provisions of law and regulations applicable thereto.

[32 FR 15241, Nov. 3, 1967, as amended by T.D. 7188, 37 FR 12794, June 29, 1972; T.D. ATF-33, 41 FR 44038, Oct. 6, 1976]
###### 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.

#### § 301.7701-8 Military or naval forces and Armed Forces of the United States.

The term “military or naval forces of the United States” and the term “Armed Forces of the United States” each includes all regular and reserve components of the uniformed services which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force. The terms also include the Coast Guard. The members of such forces include commissioned officers and the personnel below the grade of commissioned officer in such forces.
§ 303.1-5 Payment of taxes. ( a ) *Pursuant to tentative computations.* The amount of taxes shown by a tentative computation shall be paid by the Attorney General or the taxpayer, as the case may be, to the district director as soon as practicable after the tentative computation has been made. It will not be necessary, however, for the payment by the Attorney General to be made prior to the return of property if an amount sufficient to cover all internal revenue taxes is retained from the property by the Attorney General.
( b ) *Pursuant to final computations.* Upon a final computation of internal revenue taxes properly payable, the amount thereof remaining unpaid shall be paid by the Attorney General to the district director as soon as practicable after the final computation has been made, or, in case the property has been returned to the former owner, by such owner. If the final computation shows that the full amount of internal revenue taxes properly payable is less than the amount previously paid, the difference shall be credited or refunded in accordance with the provisions of these and other applicable regulations. A final computation will not prohibit a subsequent recomputation if it is determined that the amount shown by the final computation is erroneous.
( c ) *Deficiency procedure.* The Attorney General shall pay internal revenue taxes without regard to the provisions of law relating to the sending of a deficiency notice by certified or registered mail or to notice and demand.