alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 256.30 When does the Judgment Fund pay interest?

Interest is paid when it is ordered in the judgment pursuant to a statutory, contractual or constitutional waiver of sovereign immunity. Such waivers may include interest as set forth under 41 U.S.C. 611 (Contract Disputes Act), 5 U.S.C. 5596 (Back Pay Act), or Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16 (Civil Rights Act of 1991). In addition, post-judgment interest is paid on awards eligible for interest under 31 U.S.C. 1304(b) (unsuccessful appeal by the Government).
Exhibit 11.1

                    SLADE'S FERRY BANCORP. AND SUBSIDIARY
                      COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                 (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                            Three months ended
                                                 March 31
                                           2004          2003


                                     <c>           <c>
Net income (loss)                       $  645,994    $ (692,180)
Average shares outstanding               4,012,654     3,948,584
Basic earnings (loss) per share         $     0.16    $    (0.18)

Net income (loss)                       $  645,994    $ (692,180)
Average shares outstanding               4,012,654     3,948,584
Net effect of dilutive stock options        57,201             -
Adjusted shares outstanding              4,069,855     3,948,584
Diluted earnings (loss) per share       $     0.16    $    (0.18)
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 
 August 3, 2012 
 Barbara D. Riching, CPA 

[                         
             ] 

[                         
             ] 
 Dear Barbara, 

OXiGENE, Inc. (the “Company”) is pleased to amend its offer to you of part-time employment with the Company on the following revised terms and
conditions: 
  

			
	Position/Term:	  	Your part-time employment will be to serve as the Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, commencing nunc pro tunc July 30, 2012. The duties of Interim Chief
Financial Officer are anticipated to be temporary in nature, such duties expiring upon the Company’s appointment of a permanent successor, at which time your part-time employment as Director of Finance of the Company will resume. You will be a
part-time employee “at-will” so that either you or the Company may terminate your employment with the Company for any reason at any time.
		
	Pay Rate:	  	Your compensation for this non-exempt part-time position is $165 per hour worked, not to exceed 40 hours per week without prior written approval. All wages are subject to all
applicable withholding and payable in accordance with the Company’s payroll schedule.
		
	Benefits:	  	Corresponding with your responsibilities, you will remain party to an indemnification agreement with the Company as previously executed. You will also be an insured person under
the Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy on the same terms as those that are applicable to other officers of the Company. As a part-time employee, you will not be entitled to the Company’s customary
benefits or Company paid holidays.
		
	Confidentiality:	  	The Company considers the protection of its confidential information, proprietary materials and goodwill to be extremely important. Consequently, you will remain party to the
Company’s standard form of Employee Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement, as previously executed.

 If the foregoing satisfactorily reflects the mutual understanding between you and the Company, kindly sign and return to
the Company the enclosed copy of this letter. 
 We appreciate your continued service on behalf of the Company. 

Sincerely, 
 / s / 

Peter J. Langecker, MD, Ph.D. 
 Chief Executive
Officer 
 Accepted: 
 /s/
                                         
                           Date: August 3, 2012 
 Barbara D. Riching, CPA
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 210.7 Federal Reserve Banks. ( a ) *Fiscal Agents.* Each Federal Reserve Bank serves as Fiscal Agent of the Treasury in carrying out its duties as the Federal Government's ACH Operator under this part. As Fiscal Agent, each Federal Reserve Bank shall be responsible only to the Treasury and not to any other party for any loss resulting from the Federal Reserve Bank's action, notwithstanding Section 11.5 and Article 8 of the ACH Rules. Each Federal Reserve Bank may issue operating circulars not inconsistent with this part which shall be binding on financial institutions.
( b ) *Routing numbers.* All routing numbers issued by a Federal Reserve Bank to an agency require the prior approval of the Service.
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 97

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit

the Congress to limit expenditures in elections for Federal office.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 22, 1995

Mr. DINGELL 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 to permit the Congress to limit expenditures in

elections for Federal office.

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

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

•HJ 97 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE —

2 ‘‘The Congress shall have authority to limit expendi3 tures in elections for Federal office.’’.

Æ
§ 19.715 What notice does the suspending official give me if I am suspended? After deciding to suspend you, the suspending official promptly sends you a Notice of Suspension advising you— ( a ) That you have been suspended;
( b ) That your suspension is based on— ( 1 ) An indictment;
( 2 ) A conviction;
( 3 ) Other adequate evidence that you have committed irregularities which seriously reflect on the propriety of further Federal Government dealings with you; or
( 4 ) Conduct of another person that has been imputed to you, or your affiliation with a suspended or debarred person;
( c ) Of any other irregularities in terms sufficient to put you on notice without disclosing the Federal Government's evidence;
( d ) Of the cause(s) upon which we relied under § 19.700 for imposing suspension;
( e ) That your suspension is for a temporary period pending the completion of an investigation or resulting legal or debarment proceedings;
( f ) Of the applicable provisions of this subpart, subpart F of this part, and any other Department of the Treasury procedures governing suspension decision making; and
( g ) Of the governmentwide effect of your suspension from procurement and nonprocurement programs and activities.
C.J. Pickering J. priority over a first security interest and that the association may nonjudicially foreclose on that lien.

It is so ORDERED.

f3tkos 

## SI;

, Hardesty fi3/4 r 7 Parraguirre

, J. Douglas

Saitta cc: Law Office of Richard L. Tobler, Ltd. Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Clerk, United States District Court for the District of Nevada

SUPREME COURT

OF 2 NEVADA J. J.

(0) 1947A
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

R.Q. WARD, J.A. FISCHER, T.J. STINSON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

NATHAN M. KARANJA

CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICIAN THIRD CLASS (E-4), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201400202

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 28 February 2014.

Military Judge: CAPT Andrew H. Henderson, JAGC. USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Southwest, San 

Diego, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: CAPT J.M. Nilsen, 

JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: CDR Christopher Roper, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

11 September 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
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-P6 (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.	Based on 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 servicing agreements 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.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; CWCapital Asset Management LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; KeyBank National Association; Computershare Trust Company, National Association; CoreLogic Solutions, LLC; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC; BellOak, LLC; Situs Holdings, LLC; LNR Partners, LLC;and Wilmington Trust, National Association.

Date:	March 29, 2024

/s/ Richard Simpson__________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

CGCMT 2016-P6 Certifications


---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            3-MOS    
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  MAR-31-1999   
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1999   
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1999   
<CASH>                                                 205,000   
<SECURITIES>                                                 0   
<RECEIVABLES>                                                0   
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0   
<INVENTORY>                                                  0   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       246,000   
<PP&E>                                                       0   
<DEPRECIATION>                                               0   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         425,000   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  839,000   
<BONDS>                                                      0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0   
<PREFERRED>                                                  0   
<COMMON>                                               241,000   
<OTHER-SE>                                            (170,000)   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           425,000   
<SALES>                                                      0   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             0   
<CGS>                                                        0   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          273,000   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       2,000   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        722,000   
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (275,000)   
<DISCONTINUED>                                         997,000   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0   
<CHANGES>                                                    0   
<NET-INCOME>                                           722,000   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0.03   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0.03   
        


</TABLE>
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50677

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARCOS ANTONIO URIAS-MELENDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-52-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Marcos Antonio Urias-Melendez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Urias-Melendez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Urias-Melendez maintains that he
No. 03-50677

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Urias-Melendez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         439,586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  295,572
<ALLOWANCES>                                    36,284
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      16,728,266
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,475,952)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,770,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          505,282
<BONDS>                                      9,850,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,415,586
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,770,868
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,852,179
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,730,376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,306
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,912
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (45,415)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (45,415)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (45,415)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)
        

</TABLE>
| (logo) WELLS

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

 

 

 **ANNUALSTATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

 Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling andServicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2016, by and among Morgan StanleyCapital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as MasterServicer, C-III Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as OperatingAdvisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series, 2016-BNK2 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of the Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton,Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.      A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during theperiod from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been madeunder my supervision, and 

 

2.      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the MasterServicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed 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 |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7430

ROD TURNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of

Corrections,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (CA-04-19)

Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: April 8, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rod Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rod Turner, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order

in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by

a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Turner has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED