alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2019298EN.01000301.xml

| 19.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 298/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 298/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/1921

of 18 November 2019

correcting the Danish language version of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 873/2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Danish language version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 873/2011 (2) contains errors in the table of the Annex as regards a category of products and thus changes the scope of the Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Danish language version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 873/2011 (2) contains errors in the table of the Annex as regards a category of products and thus changes the scope of the Regulation.

| (2) | The Danish language version of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 873/2011 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Danish language version of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 873/2011 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

(does not concern the English language)

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 November 2019.

For the Commission

The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 873/2011 of 27 July 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ L 227, 2.9.2011, p. 5).

2

---
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re:          Annual Statement of Compliance for JPMDB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust2016-C4 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C4

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of November 1, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go  far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                          35,526
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,099
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    507,068
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               596,725
<PP&E>                                         697,992
<DEPRECIATION>                                 201,722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,100,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          518,723
<BONDS>                                        299,741
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           169
<OTHER-SE>                                   (184,608)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,100,045
<SALES>                                        525,635
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               525,635
<CGS>                                          385,197
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  385,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               160,088
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,391
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (36,315)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (36,315)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (36,315)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.14)
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 226.4 Adequacy of security—how computed. ( a ) In qualifying Insurance Organizations, the Treasury will use a ratio (equity (net worth) of the insurance organization divided by insured accounts or deposits) to determine if the security is adequate. The ratio will be computed as determined by the Treasury, and is required to equal 0.0045 or greater for an Insurance Organization to be recognized (*i.e.*, net worth is required to equal 0.45 of 1 percent of insured accounts or deposits).
( b ) If, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury, any of the Insurance Organization's assets which cannot be liquidated promptly or are subject to restriction, encumbrance, or discredit, all or part of the value of such assets may be deducted from equity in making the computation. The Secretary of the Treasury may value the assets and liabilities in his discretion.
( c ) An Insurance Organization's unqualified borrowing authority from its sponsoring State will be added to its equity in making the computation because such authority is equivalent to additional capitalization. An Insurance Organization's commercial borrowing authority and its reinsurance will be disregarded in making the computation, because these are not adequate substitutes for undercapitalization.
Note:
For a delegation of authority to perform the functions described in §§ 226.3 and 226.4, see 44 FR 19406 of the Federal Register of April 3, 1979.
[43 FR 18972, May 2, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 19406, Apr. 3, 1979]
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 Blackhawk Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Richard Bastian, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (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/R. Richard Bastian, III
-------------------------------------
R. Richard Bastian, III
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 3, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Blackhawk Bancorp, Inc. and will
be retained by Blackhawk Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 20.2207-1 Liability of recipient of property over which decedent had power of appointment.

With respect to the right of the district director to collect the tax without regard to the provisions of section 2207, see § 20.2205-1.
www.gpo.gov

### §288f–3. Immunities for International Committee of the Red Cross

The International Committee of the Red Cross, in view of its unique status as an impartial humanitarian body named in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and assisting in their implementation, shall be considered to be an international organization for the purposes of this subchapter and may be extended the provisions of this subchapter in the same manner, to the same extent, and subject to the same conditions, as such provisions may be extended to a public international organization in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for such participation.

(Dec. 29, 1945, ch. 652, title I, §13, as added Pub. L. 100–204, title VII, §743, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1395.)

#### Executive Order

For executive orders relating to extension of certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities to public international organizations, see notes set out under section 288 of this title.
§ 1020.630 Prohibition on correspondent accounts for foreign shell banks; records concerning owners of foreign banks and agents for service of legal process. ( a ) Refer to § 1010.630 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To Management of AEGON USARealty Advisors, LLC

 

We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying *Report on Assessment of Compliancewith Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant to Item 1122(d) of Regulation ABunder the Securities Exchange Act of 1934*, that AEGON USA Realty Advisors,LLC (“AEGON” or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forthin Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forthe commercial mortgage backed securities transactions listed in management’sassertion (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year thenended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i), 1122(d)(3)(ii),1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x),1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), 1122(d)(4)(xiv) and1122(d)(4)(xv), which AEGON has determined are not applicable to the servicingactivities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management isresponsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backedtransactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether theCompany processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed bythe Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that AEGON complied with the aforementioned applicable servicingcriteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platform isfairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 28, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106*

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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1008 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1008

   To require periodic maintenance dredging for the Greenville Inner 
                      Harbor Channel, Mississippi.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 21, 1995

 Mr. Thompson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require periodic maintenance dredging for the Greenville Inner 
                      Harbor Channel, Mississippi.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. GREENVILLE INNER HARBOR CHANNEL, MISSISSIPPI.

    The Greenville Inner Harbor Channel, Mississippi, is deemed to be a 
portion of the navigable waters of the United States, and shall be 
included among the navigable waters for which the Secretary of the Army 
maintains a 10-foot navigable channel. The navigable channel for the 
Greenville Inner Harbor Channel shall be maintained in a manner 
consistent with the navigable channel of the Greenville Harbor and that 
portion of the Mississippi River adjacent thereto, as maintained by the 
Secretary on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
628 P.2d 60

#### In the Matter of the Appeal In JUVENILE ACTION NO. 5539-J.

No. 2 CA-CIV 3970.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

March 27, 1981.

Review Denied April 21, 1981.

Vincent J. Festa, Sierra Vista, for appellant Mother.

Ben Cole, Bisbee, for Juveniles.

Beverly H. Jenney, Cochise County Atty. by Dushan S. Vlahovich, Bisbee, for appellee DES.

*24OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, who resides in Sierra Vista, is the mother of two teenaged boys adjudicated dependent children. The court ordered that legal custody of the boys be awarded to the Department of Economic Security (DES) with physical custody in their father, the placement to be monitored by DES with reports made at least once monthly concerning the progress and status of the parties as to the father’s care of the boys.

Appellant presents two grounds for re-' versal of the juvenile court order: (1) lack of jurisdiction and (2) insufficient evidence to establish dependency. We agree with appellant as to the latter ground and reverse.

The petition alleged in pertinent part that the boys were dependent children under A.R.S. Sec. 8-201(10)(a), as amended, for the reason that their mother, who had their legal custody, was undergoing psychiatric treatment at the Palo Verde Psychiatric Hospital in Tucson for a period of at least three months. This petition does not comply with the requirement laid down in our case of *Matter of Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. J-46735,*25 Ariz. App. 424, 544 P.2d 248 (1976), as to the sufficiency of a juvenile petition to invoke the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, in that the facts alleged only pertain to one parent.

Assuming, arguendo, that the petition invoked jurisdiction, appellant contends that the state failed to meet its burden of proving the boys were dependent children because, at the time of the hearing on the petition, she was no longer at the psychiatric facility and was present in the courtroom. Alternatively, she argues the state failed to prove that either child was dependent within the statutory definition, i. e., “[i]n need of proper and effective parental care and control and has no parent or guardian, or one who has no parent or guardian willing to exercise or capable of exercising such care and control.” A.R.S. Sec. 8-201(10)(a).

We agree with appellant that the state failed to satisfy the burden of proof. The evidence focused solely on the ability of the mother, who had legal custody of the boys pursuant to an Alabama divorce decree, to provide effective care and control. At the time of the hearing on the dependency petition, the boys were living with their father in Sierra Vista and had been for almost two months. There was no evidence whatsoever which indicated that the father was unwilling to, or incapable of, exercising proper and effective parental care and control. Under these circumstances, the boys were not “dependent” within the statutory definition and the dependency petition should have been dismissed.

We therefore reverse the order adjudicating the juveniles dependent and remand for entry of an appropriate order of dismissal.
* 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

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 FED. R. CIV. 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 for
No. 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donnavan Bennette, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 618]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blackburne, J.), rendered February 25, 2002, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the jury verdict finding him guilty of assault in the second degree and not guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree was repugnant. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant’s counsel failed to raise the issue before the discharge of the jury *(see People v Satloff,*56 NY2d 745 [1982]). In any event, viewing the elements of the crime as charged to the jury *(see People v Tucker,*55 NY2d 1, 4 [1981]), the jury could have found that the defendant initially possessed a dangerous instrument without any intent to use it unlawfully *(see People v Salazar,*16 AD3d 439 [2005]; *People v Holloway,*253 AD2d 767, 768 [1998]; *People v Smith,*235 AD2d 558, 559 [1997]). Thus, the verdict was not repugnant *(see People v Salazar, supra).*

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
#### AANP, an Oregon nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIANS, an Oregon corporation, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 00-35694.

D.C. No. CV-99-00440-ALH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 14, 2002.

Before TROTT, T.G. NELSON, Circuit *895Judges, and SHADUR,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

ORDER

Appellee was awarded attorneys fees on appeal. The determination of an appropriate amount of fees on appeal and the appropriate amount of post-judgment interest due to appellee is referred to the court’s special master, Appellate Commissioner Peter L. Shaw, who shall conduct whatever proceedings he deems appropriate, and who shall have authority to enter an order awarding fees and the appropriate amount of post-judgment interest due to the appellee. *See*Introduction to Ninth Circuit Rules § C(2); 9th Cir. Gen. Orders 1.8, 6.3(e), 6.10.