alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Springfield-Branson 2300 n airport blvd ste 100 

springfield missouri 65802 

NATIONAL AIRPORT p 417.868.0500 f 417.868.0501 

June 29, 2012 

Ms. Aloha Ley 

Associate Director 

Small Community Air Service Development Program 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Small Community Air Service Development Program 

Docket# DOT-OST-2012-0069 

Dear Ms. Ley: 

" ··· .} 

.. 

This letter is to raise objections to an application submitted to the United States Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) for federal grant funding to support air service development efforts at 

the private Branson Airport, Branson, Missouri. 

The City of Springfield, Missouri, owns and operates the Springfield-Branson National Airport 

(SGF), which is classified as a small hub airport by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

SGF has direct service to ten destinations from American, United, Delta, and Allegiant Airlines, 

including multiple daily flights to four major hubs. There were 365,698 enplanements in 2011. 

We have no problem with fair competition as it helps keep air fares in check, increases options to 

the public, and is good for the region's economic growth. We also have no desire that the private 

Branson Airport fail even though no federal, state, or local governmental entity asked that it be 

built. We simply raise a question of fairness. 

The private Branson Airport has touted itself from day one as a completely new business model 

that does not want or need federal aviation funding to be successful. They have stated publically 

they want the competitive advantage of not having to follow the same rules and grant conditions 

all public airports must follow to receive federal aviation funding, known as Grant Assurances. 

We understand they have used this advantage to enter into agreements guaranteeing exclusive 

rights, diverting airport revenue to pay private shareholders, and to subsidize airline service with 

airport revenue, all of which are prohibited under FAA Grant Assurances. However, none of this 

can be readily verified since they are not required to disclose this information as a private airport. 

We feel federal aviation funding should not be granted to the Branson/Lakes Area Chamber of 

Commerce and the Convention and Visitors Bureau, even as public entities, because any grant 

funds would be used exclusively to market the private Branson Airport. It would be using public 

funds to promote a private for~profit business. 
Page2 

June 29, 2012 

Ms. Aloha Ley 

If approved, it would set up an unfair playing field where SGF would be severely disadvantaged 

and could jeopardize the significant public investment made to develop SGF into the state-ofthe-art facility that it is today. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Brian C. Weiler, A.A.E. 

Director of Aviation
NO APPEAL FROM MOTION TO SET ASIDE FINAL ORDER.

Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.

#### The South Cleveland Banking Company v. H. L. Nachtrieb et al.

Decided, March 27, 1905.

*Appeals■*— No *Appeal from Motion to Set Aside Final Order.*

Appeals may only be taken from final orders or decrees, and a motion to set aside such an order or decree is not appealable.

Marvin, J.; Winch, J., and TIenry, J., concur.

This case is heard on a motion to dismiss the appeal which was taken by one Crowell, who was not a party to the proceeding but was interested in the result. Crowell was appointed by the common pleas court in this action as receiver of the property of H. N. Nachtrieb. When his report was filed as such, the court of common pleas found a certain amount of money to be in his hands as such receiver, and ordered that the entire amount be distributed to the creditors, and that the receiver should have no compensation for his services. This order was made on the 26th day of October, 1904.

On the 15th day of December, 1904, Crowell made a. motion in the same court to have the order and judgment set aside. This motion was overruled, and it is from this order of the court overruling said motion that Crowell gave notice and bond, and filed transcript for appeal to this court. The motion now disposed of is made by the South Cleveland Banking Co., on the ground that the order is not appealable. The final order in the case was that of October 27, 1904, and without consideration of the question whether Crowell might or might not appeal the case, it is perfectly clear that what he seeks to appeal is not the final order of the court of common pleas.

The statutes provide within what time thereafter proceedings may be taken. Crowell allowed the case to rest from that day until the 15th day of December and then filed a motion to set *505aside that final order of October. The court refused to set it aside. If an appeal can be taken from such an order, all one has to do who desires to appeal his case is to leave the final order, pay no attention to it until a convenient season, and then file a motion to have it set aside. There is nothing here for anybody to appeal from. The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.
AMENDMENT NO



AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE

ALPHARMA INC. 2003 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 





The Alpharma Inc. 2003 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended effective as of June 22, 2006, as follows:



1.Section 17.1 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
"The Company, acting through its Board, may, at any time and from time to time, alter, amend, modify, suspend, or terminate the Plan in whole or in part.  Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, without the prior approval of the Company''s stockholders, Options issued under the Plan will not be repriced, replaced, or regranted through cancellation, or by lowering the exercise price of a previously granted Option. No amendment of the Plan shall be made without stockholder approval if stockholder approval is required by law, regulation, or stock exchange rule.



Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board has delegated to the executive management Benefits Committee the authority to adopt administrative amendments to the Plan, provided, that such amendments do not involve a change in the costs or liability of the Company or alter the benefits payable thereunder.  The Board has delegated to the Compensation Committee the authority to adopt all other amendments to the Plan, provided, that such amendments do not significantly increase or decrease benefit amounts, or  are  required  to be adopted by the Board under the Code or the regulations thereunder.  The Board retains the authority to adopt amendments to the Plan that significantly increase or decrease benefit amounts, or are required to be adopted by the Board under the Code or regulations thereunder."







*********

	
_/s/ George P. Rose________________
	
October 23, 2006

	
ALPHARMA INC.
	
 DATE
(logo)RialtoCAPITAL

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofNovember 1, 2016 by and among Banc of America Merrill Lynch CommercialMortgage, Inc. as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust,National Association as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as CertificateAdministrator and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as Operating Advisor andAsset Representations Reviewer relating to Morgan Stanley Bank of AmericaMerrill Lynch Trust 2016-C31, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,Series 2016-C31  **(MSBAM 2016-C31)**

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.      All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.      A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicerfor the period of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”)in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted undermy supervision.

 

3.      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/AdamSinger                                                             Date: March 1, 2018

     Adam Singer,Managing Director
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Krupp Government Income Trust (the
"Trust") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter
F. Donovan, Chief Executive Officer of the Trust, certify, pursuant to U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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 Trust as of June 30, 2003 (the last date of the period
            covered by the Report).


/s/ Peter F. Donovan
-----------------------
Peter F. Donovan,
Chief Executive Officer
August 6, 2003


                                      -17-
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 14

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing

the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the

flag of the United States and to set criminal penalties for that act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. EMERSON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United

States and to set criminal penalties for that act.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 14 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘The Congress and the States shall have power to

5 prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United

6 States and to set criminal penalties for that act.’’.

Æ
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 114

To authorize the Newington-Cropsey Foundation to erect on the Capitol

Grounds and present to Congress a ‘‘Bill of Rights Eagle’’ monument

dedicated to the Bill of Rights.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 17, 1995

Mr. GILMAN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To authorize the Newington-Cropsey Foundation to erect

on the Capitol Grounds and present to Congress a ‘‘Bill

of Rights Eagle’’ monument dedicated to the Bill of

Rights.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION.

4 The Newington-Cropsey Foundation is authorized to

5 erect on the Capitol Grounds and present to Congress a

6 ‘‘Bill of Rights Eagle’’ monument (in this resolution re7 ferred to as the ‘‘monument’’) dedicated to the Bill of
2

•HCON 114 IH

1 Rights. The monument shall be erected and presented

2 without expense to the United States.

3 SEC. 2. APPROVAL.

4 The plans for the monument shall be subject to ap5 proval by the Architect of the Capitol. The monument

6 shall be erected on a site to be determined by the Architect

7 of the Capitol. Such determination shall be—

8 (1) subject to approval by the Committee on

9 House Oversight of the House of Representatives

10 and the Committee on Rules and Administration of

11 the Senate; and

12 (2) made in consultation with the Newington13 Cropsey Foundation.

14 SEC. 3. ACCEPTANCE.

15 After completion of the monument according to the

16 approved plans, the monument shall be accepted by the

17 Congress on behalf of the people of the United States for

18 permanent placement on the Capitol Grounds.

Æ
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Louisiana, Catahoula Bay to WaxLake Outlet, including the Houma Navigation Canal**
 
 
 
**jpg
**pdf
**jpg
**pdf
 
 
 
 
 
**1992
11355-8p0
11355-8p0
11355-8p1
11355-8p1
** 
11355-10p0
11355-10p0
11355-10p1
11355-10p1
** 
 
 
 
 
**1995
11355-3p0
11355-3p0
11355-3p1
11355-3p1
** 
11355Front
11355Front
11355Table
11355Table
 
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.418/7:11355/
Item Number:0191-B-13 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000921469 
 
December 27, 2017******************
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Craftmade International, Inc. (the "Company"), does
hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31,
2003 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

Date: February 11, 2004                        /s/ Kathleen B. Oher
                                             ----------------------
                                                   Kathleen B. Oher
                                                   Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

         The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the
Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank Sarelli, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 52,890.

First District, Second Division.

January 21, 1969.

Rehearing denied March 5, 1969.

Anna R. Lavin, of Chicago, for appellant; John J. Stamos, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Thomas J. Immel, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE BURKE.

Not to be published in fulL
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2016, by and among SGCOMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LLC, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as SpecialServicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator,WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and PARK BRIDGE LENDERSERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C5 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance perthe Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2.       Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled allof its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theperiod January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank 

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
39517.

#### DAVIS v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was tried and convicted on an accusation charging that he, on a named date in *134Washington County, Georgia, “did then and there unlawfully and with force and arms have control and possess spirituous and intoxicating liquors, to wit: NTPW, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.” The defendant’s motion for new trial was overruled by the trial court and such judgment affirmed by this court. *Davis v. State,*105 Ga. App. 5 (123 SE2d 271). Thereafter, the defendant’s motion to arrest the judgment of conviction, made at the same term as the conviction, was overruled and the defendant now assigns error on such judgment. The motion to arrest was based on the contention that the accusation was void because of the language “to wit: NTPW.” *Held:*

Decided May 23, 1962

Rehearing denied June 13, 1962.

*Casey Thigpen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas A. Hutcheson, Solicitor,*contra.

1. While a defendant is entitled to be tried upon a perfect indictment or accusation, such right may be waived by failure to object until after conviction, and unless the accusation or indictment is so defective as to be absolutely void a motion in arrest of judgment, made after verdict, will not lie. *Lanier v. State,*5 Ga. App. 472 (63 SE 536); *Gravitt v. State,*36 Ga. App. 301 (136 SE 829).

2. Assuming, but not deciding, as the defendant contends that “to wit: NTPW” adds nothing to the remainder of the accusation, this only made the accusation subject to special demurrer *(Morris v. State,*93 Ga. App. 772, 92 SE2d 726) and such words would not invalidate the remainder of the accusation so as to require holding that the same was void. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion seeking to arrest the judgment.

*Judgment affinned.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 16 October 2006 — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze v Part Service Srl, in liquidation

(Case C-425/06)

(2006/C 326/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

La Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze

Defendant: Part Service Srl, in liquidation

Questions referred

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 40171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19232]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers


Amended Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Proposed Regional Watershed Supply Project, Second 
Notice of Extension of Scoping Period

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The public scoping comment period for the Intent to Prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Regional Watershed Supply 
Project by Million Conservation Resource Group, published in the 
Federal Register on Friday, March 20, 2009 (74 FR 11920), required 
comments be submitted May 19, 2009 following publication in the Federal 
Register. The comment period was later extended to July 27, 2009, to 
accommodate requests from entities that desired more time and from 
areas that desired additional public meetings. The comment period has 
now been extended to September 28, 2009. Due to number of cooperating 
agency requests received, the Corps is extending the comment period to 
allow for additional time to respond to these requests. During this 
time period, the Corps will communicate with certain entities regarding 
the possibility of consolidating participation through designation of a 
single point of contact to represent multiple entities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions and comments regarding the 
proposed action and EIS should be addressed to Ms. Rena Brand, Project 
Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Denver Regulatory Office, 9307 
S. Wadsworth Blvd., Littleton, CO 80128-6901; (303) 979-4120; 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e636d7c69206b677d4e7b7d6f6d6b206f7c637720636762"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="274a44554009424e546752544644420946554a5e094a4e4b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-19232 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>