alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 44.4401-2 Person liable for tax. ( a ) *In general.* ( 1 ) Every person engaged in the business of accepting wagers with respect to a sports event or a contest is liable for the tax on any such wager accepted by him. Every person who operates a wagering pool or lottery conducted for profit is liable for the tax with respect to any wager or contribution placed in such pool or lottery. To be liable for the tax, it is not necessary that the person engaged in the business of accepting wagers or operating a wagering pool or lottery physically receive the wager or contribution. Any wager or contribution received by an agent or employee on behalf of such person shall be considered to have been accepted by and placed with such person.
( 2 ) Any person required to register under section 4412 by reason of having received wagers for or on behalf of another person, but who fails to register the name and place of residence of such other person (hereinafter in this subparagraph referred to as principal), shall be liable for the tax on all wagers received by him during the period in which he has failed to so register the name and place of residence of such principal. Subsequent compliance with section 4412 by the person receiving wagers for another does not relieve him of his liability and duty to pay such tax, nor will the fact that such person incurs liability with respect to the tax on such wagers, relieve his principal of liability for the tax imposed under section 4401 with respect to such wagers. Accordingly, both the person receiving the wagers and his principal shall be liable for the tax on such wagers until the tax is paid. Payment of the tax on such wagers shall not relieve the person receiving wagers of any penalty for failure to register as required by section 4412. This subparagraph has application only to wagers received after September 2, 1958.
( b ) *In business of accepting wagers.* A person is engaged in the business of accepting wagers if he makes it a practice to accept wagers with respect to which he assumes the risk of profit or loss depending upon the outcome of the event or the contest with respect to which the wager is accepted. It is not intended that to be engaged in the business of accepting wagers a person must be either so engaged to the exclusion of all other activities or even primarily so engaged. Thus, for example, an individual may be primarily engaged in business as a salesman, and also for the purpose of the tax be engaged in the business of accepting wagers.
( c ) *Lay-offs.* If a person engaged in the business of accepting wagers or conducting a lottery or betting pool for profits lays off all or part of the wagers placed with him with another person engaged in the business of accepting wagers or conducting a betting pool or lottery for profit, he shall, notwithstanding such lay-off, be liable for the tax on the wagers or contributions initially accepted by him. See § 44.6419-2 for credit and refund provisions applicable with respect to laid-off wagers.
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 Sky Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marty E. Adams, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 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 Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|/S/    MARTY E. ADAMS                          
|-----------------------------------------------
|Marty E. Adams                                 
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer



August 12, 2003
**
**Exhibit 31**

**Certifications**

I, Richard Simpson,certify that: 

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 Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-C3(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain 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 thisreport; 

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. Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicingagreements in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities 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 suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, Ihave reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC; Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLC; Deutsche Bank TrustCompany Americas; Berkeley Point Capital LLC; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; LNR Partners, LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC; andC-III Asset Management LLC. 

Date: November 27, 2019 

 

/s/ Richard Simpson

Richard Simpson

President, CitigroupCommercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

CGCMT 2016-C3 Certifications (2018) 
**
###### 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.

#### § 301.7516-1 Training and training aids on request.

The Commissioner is authorized, within his discretion, upon written request, to admit employees and officials of any State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, any political subdivision or instrumentality of any of the foregoing, the District of Columbia, or any foreign government to training courses conducted by the Internal Revenue Service, and to supply them with texts and other training aids. Requests for such training or training aids should be addressed to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Washington, D.C. 20224, Attention: A: T, except that requests involving officials or visitors of foreign governments should be addressed to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Washington, D.C. 20224. Attention: C: FA. The Commissioner may require payment from the party or parties making the request of a reasonable fee not to exceed the cost of the training and training aids supplied pursuant to such request.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 112 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 112

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the appointment of Louis Gerstner as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 112

_______________________________________________________________________

                            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.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 7, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
----

----

III Közlemények

Tanács

----

PÁLYÁZATI FELHÍVÁS AUDIOVIZUÁLIS TANÁCSADÓ TISZTVISELŐI ÁLLÁS BETÖLTÉSÉRE

(Ref. CONS/AD/046)

(2006/C 311 A/01)

Az Európai Unió Tanácsának Főtitkársága pályázatot hirdet az F. Főigazgatóság (Sajtó, Kommunikáció és Protokoll) 1. osztályán (Sajtószolgálat) megüresedett álláshely betöltésére.

A sikeres pályázó számára (hat hónap próbaidővel) négyéves időszakra szóló, AD10 besorolású ideiglenes alkalmazotti szerződést ajánlanak, amely egy alkalommal legfeljebb két évre meghosszabbítható.

Az álláshellyel kapcsolatos további információk, valamint a pályázatok benyújtásának feltételei a Tanács honlapján olvasható álláshirdetésben szerepelnek, amely az alábbi címen érhető el:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/concours

A pályázatok benyújtásának határideje 2007. január 19., amelyet a postai bélyegző hitelesít.

----
#### David B. Jacobs, Appellant, v Michael H. Mostow et al., Respondents.

[806 NYS2d 213]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated December 11, 2003, which, upon an order of the same court dated August 20, 2003, denying his motion, inter alia, to compel further discovery and, sua sponte, quashing certain nonparty subpoenas, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the complaint is reinstated, so much of the order dated August 20, 2003, as denied that branch of the motion which was to compel further discovery is vacated, the third decretal paragraph of the order dated August 20, 2003, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new determination of that branch of the motion which was to compel further discovery.

The Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint without notice to the parties and in the absence of an application by the *624defendants for such relief *(see Grimes v Kaplin,*305 AD2d 1024 [2003]; *Gibbs v Kinsey,*120 AD2d 701 [1986]). The plaintiff was improperly deprived of the opportunity to submit any additional proof he might have in opposition to the dismissal of his complaint on the merits *(see Hoeffner v John F. Frank, Inc.,*302 AD2d 428, 430 [2003]; *Sena v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*198 AD2d 345, 346 [1993]).

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly quashed the subpoenas duces tecum directed to Dr. Herschel Williams and attorney Lawrence Tenenbaum *(see*CPLR 3103). Under the circumstances of this case, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new determination of that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to compel further discovery.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 24, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41647 Conference Calendar

CAROLYN FOSTER; MURRELL FOSTER, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus BILLY DALE MOYE, An Individual; Donald W. Capshaw, Individually, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:02-CV-63

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Carolyn and Murrell Foster appeal the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. We dismiss the appeal as frivolous. Judge Moye is absolutely immune from liability. See Brinkmann v. Johnston , 793 F.2d 111, 112 (5th Cir. 1986). The Fosters’ challenge to Judge Moye’s credentials is a question forNo. 02-41647 -2- the Texas courts and does not affect his immunity from suit. Cf. Holloway v. Walker , 765 F.2d 517, 523-24 (5th Cir. 1985). The Fosters’ allegation that defendant Capshaw, a private party, is liable because he conspired with Judge Moye, a state actor, to deprive them of their rights to access the courts is conclusional and therefore insufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. See Lynch v. Cannatella , 810 F.2d 1363, 1369-70 (5th Cir. 1987). This appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The Fosters’ pleadings contain several unflattering references to the district judge and opposing counsel. The Fosters are cautioned that the use of abusive language in future pleadings will not be tolerated and will be stricken. See Theriault v. Silber , 579 F.2d 302, 302 (5th Cir. 1978). APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,733
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          22,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    151,747
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          15,538
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            15,060
<LOANS>                                        222,526
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,857
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 442,080
<DEPOSITS>                                     258,618
<SHORT-TERM>                                    40,206
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             23,992
<LONG-TERM>                                     95,385
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,156
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 442,080
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,329
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,604
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   117
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,050
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,542
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,146
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,904
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       84
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  42
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,223
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    969
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         969
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       969
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.05
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,759
<LOANS-PAST>                                         2
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    42
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,782
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       11
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,857
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,207
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            650


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, ) 

as Successor by Merger to the Bank of ) 

New York, as Trustee for the benefit of ) 

the asset-backed Certificates, ) 

Series 2007-2, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D15-1527 

 ) 

HENRY RUIZ, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed July 15, 2016. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Perry A. Little, 

Senior Judge. 

Susan B. Morrison and Lauren E. 

Wages of Law Office of Daniel C. 

Consuegra, P.L., Tampa (withdrew 

after briefing); Kimberly N. Hopkins of 

Shapiro, Fishman & Gache, LLP, 

Tampa (substituted as counsel of 

record), for Appellant. 

Nick Fowler and Sami Thalji of 

Stamatakis, Thalji, Bonanno, Tampa, 

for Appellee. 
- 2 -

KELLY, Judge. 

 The Bank of New York Mellon appeals from the order dismissing its 

foreclosure action against Henry Ruiz based on the Bank's alleged failure to comply 

with the notice requirements of paragraph twenty-two of the mortgage. Because the 

Bank's letter substantially complied with its notice obligations under the terms of the 

mortgage, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Green Tree 

Servicing, LLC v. Milam, 177 So. 3d 7, 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). 

 Reversed and remanded. 

CASANUEVA and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                           1,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,060
<INVENTORY>                                     67,393
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,292
<PP&E>                                          13,489
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 219,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,121
<BONDS>                                        105,645
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,226
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   219,899
<SALES>                                        105,185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,185
<CGS>                                           76,414
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,002
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   607
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,467
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,302
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,921
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,381
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (192)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,189
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000856751
<NAME> FIRST KEYSTONE FINANCIAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,101
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,432
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     86,360
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          27,121
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            26,049
<LOANS>                                        177,157
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,656
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 314,637
<DEPOSITS>                                     223,412
<SHORT-TERM>                                    51,700
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,160
<LONG-TERM>                                     12,114
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,110
<OTHER-SE>                                       (630)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 314,637
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,025
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,649
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   126
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,800
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,461
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,971
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,829
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      116
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,062
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,062
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,268
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.37
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,860
<LOANS-PAST>                                        15
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,624
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       86
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,656
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,185
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            471
        

</TABLE>