alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   4-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,708
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,235
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     66,248
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               139,022
<PP&E>                                          47,346
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 274,456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,516
<BONDS>                                        319,069
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (134,451)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   274,456
<SALES>                                         79,410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,410
<CGS>                                           50,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,182
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,531)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,139)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       218
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,357)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,357)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40857

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS HIDALGO-DOMINGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-129

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus HidalgoDominguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hidalgo-Dominguez has filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein, as well as Hidalgo-Dominguez’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

 

* 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

April 26, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40857 Document: 00513481183 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2016
No. 15-40857

2

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Hidalgo-Dominguez’s motion for appointment of counsel 

is DENIED. 

 Case: 15-40857 Document: 00513481183 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2016
Exhibit 31

Certifications

I, Paul
Vanderslice, 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 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
annual 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; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC; Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLC; Deutsche Bank Trust
Company 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; and
C-III Asset Management LLC.

Date: March 29, 2018



|                                                                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                       
|/s/ Paul Vanderslice                                                                                                                   
|Paul Vanderslice
President, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc. (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

CGCMT 2016-C3 Sarbanes-Oxley Certification (2017)
40091.

#### LUNDIN et al. v. KUNIANSKY.

Hall, Judge.

This is a suit by a real estate broker against the sellers of property, and the purchasers with whom they consummated the sale, to recover commissions for services performed in procuring the purchasers. The case was tried without a jury by the judge who rendered judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant sellers, and in favor of the defendant purchasers. The losing defendants assign error on the overruling of their motion for new trial on the general grounds. *Held:*

“Where property placed in the hands of a broker for sale is subsequently sold by the owner, the broker is entitled to the commission if he was the procuring cause of the sale, although the sale was actually consummated by the owner. . . In determining whether a broker has earned his commission for procuring a purchaser, it is not necessary that his services shall have been the sole cause, but it is enough if the efforts of the broker, acting on the purchaser, are the efficient cause of his offer.” *Arnold v. Jowers,*102 Ga. App. 29, 30 (115 SE2d 623); accord *Thornton v. Lewis,*106 Ga. App. 328 (126 SE2d 869).

There was evidence that the sellers listed their house in April 1960 with several realty brokers, including the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s agents showed the house to the purchasers, and thereafter the sellers took the house off the market. In early October the sellers contacted the plaintiff’s agent and told him, “My house is back on the market ... we are going to reduce the price.” On October 23 the agent made an appointment with the purchasers to go to see the house that afternoon and telephoned the seller and told him this and *775later notified the seller that the purchasers had postponed the appointment to the following Tuesday. The same evening the seller called the agent and told him the purchaser had been to his house “claiming they never met you or your wife or anybody in your organization.” The sellers testified that they ran a newspaper ad themselves on October 9 and the purchasers came to see the house on the same date in response to the ad. On November 1 the purchasers made an offer which the sellers accepted, and the sellers and purchasers entered into a written agreement on November 7. There was contradictory testimony on all important issues of fact.

Decided May 14, 1963.

*Robert W. Spears, Wm. G. Grant,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Arnold Shulman, Aaron I. Alembik,*contra.

There was some evidence to support a finding that the property was listed with the broker at the time the parties agreed upon the sale, that the broker was the procuring cause of the purchase, or that the efforts of the broker acting on the purchaser were the efficient cause, whether or not they were the sole cause, of the purchaser’s offer. Accordingly, the trial judge having exercised the discretion vested in him by law in approving the verdict and judgment and overruling the general grounds of the motion for new trial, this court cannot hold that he erred in denying a new trial. *Kendrick v. Kendrick,*218 Ga. 460, 461 (128 SE2d 496).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.*
# L_2021382DE.01005901.xml

| 28.10.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 382/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 382/59

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) 2019/1009 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 5. Juni 2019 mit Vorschriften für die Bereitstellung von EU-Düngeprodukten auf dem Markt und zur Änderung der Verordnungen (EG) Nr. 1069/2009 und (EG) Nr. 1107/2009 sowie zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2003/2003

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 170 vom 25. Juni 2019
  )

Seite 46, Anhang I Teil II unter PFC 1(C)(I)(a)(ii): FESTES ANORGANISCHES MEHRNÄHRSTOFF-MAKRONÄHRSTOFF-DÜNGEMITTEL

Anstatt:

| „2. | Ein festes anorganisches Einnährstoff-Makronährstoff-Düngemittel muss mehr als einen der folgenden deklarierten Makronährstoffe mit mindestens dem folgenden Gehalt enthalten: ...“ |
| --- | --- |

„2.

Ein festes anorganisches Einnährstoff-Makronährstoff-Düngemittel muss mehr als einen der folgenden deklarierten Makronährstoffe mit mindestens dem folgenden Gehalt enthalten: ...“

muss es heißen:

| „2. | Ein festes anorganisches Mehrnährstoff-Makronährstoff-Düngemittel muss mehr als einen der folgenden deklarierten Makronährstoffe mit mindestens dem folgenden Gehalt enthalten: ...“. |
| --- | --- |

„2.

Ein festes anorganisches Mehrnährstoff-Makronährstoff-Düngemittel muss mehr als einen der folgenden deklarierten Makronährstoffe mit mindestens dem folgenden Gehalt enthalten: ...“.

---
#### § 1.722-1 Basis of contributing partner's interest.

The basis to a partner of a partnership interest acquired by a contribution of property, including money, to the partnership shall be the amount of money contributed plus the adjusted basis at the time of contribution of any property contributed. If the acquisition of an interest in partnership capital results in taxable income to a partner, such income shall constitute an addition to the basis of the partner's interest. See paragraph (b) of § 1.721-1. If the contributed property is subject to indebtedness or if liabilities of the partner are assumed by the partnership, the basis of the contributing partner's interest shall be reduced by the portion of the indebtedness assumed by the other partners, since the partnership's assumption of his indebtedness is treated as a distribution of money to the partner. Conversely, the assumption by the other partners of a portion of the contributor's indebtedness is treated as a contribution of money by them. See section 752 and § 1.752-1. See § 1.460-4(k)(3)(iv)(A) for rules relating to basis adjustments required where a contract accounted for under a long-term contract method of accounting is transferred in a contribution to which section 721(a) applies. The provisions of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:

# Example 1.

A acquired a 20-percent interest in a partnership by contributing property. At the time of A's contribution, the property had a fair market value of $10,000, an adjusted basis to A of $4,000, and was subject to a mortgage of $2,000. Payment of the mortgage was assumed by the partnership. The basis of A's interest in the partnership is $2,400, computed as follows:

| Adjusted basis to A of property contributed | $4,000 |
| --- | --- |
| Less portion of mortgage assumed by other partners which must be treated as a distribution (80 percent of $2,000) | 1,600 |
| Basis of A's interest | 2,400 |

# Example 2.

If, in example 1 of this section, the property contributed by A was subject to a mortgage of $6,000, the basis of A's interest would be zero, computed as follows:

| Adjusted basis to A of property contributed | $4,000 |
| --- | --- |
| Less portion of mortgage assumed by other partners which must be treated as a distribution (80 percent of $6,000) | 4,800 |
| | (800) |

Since A's basis cannot be less than zero, the $800 in excess of basis, which is considered as a distribution of money under section 752(b), is treated as capital gain from the sale or exchange or a partnership interest. See section 731(a).

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11814, Nov. 26, 1960; 25 FR 14021, Dec. 31, 1960, as amended by T.D. 9137, 69 FR 42558, July 16, 2004]
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2020051EN.01001401.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 25.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 51/14 |

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2199 of 17 October 2019 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items

(
[Official Journal of the European Union of L 338 of 30 December 2019](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2019_338_R_TOC)
)

On page 129, point f is replaced as follows:

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ‘f. | Lithography equipment as follows: | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1. | Align and expose step and repeat (direct step on wafer) or step and scan (scanner) equipment for wafer processing using photo-optical or X-ray methods and having any of the following: | | | | --- | --- | | a. | A light source wavelength shorter than 193 nm; or | | | | | --- | --- | | b. | Capable of producing a pattern with a “Minimum Resolvable Feature size” (MRF) of 45 nm or less; Technical Note: The “Minimum Resolvable Feature size” (MRF) is calculated by the following formula: Image 1 w.tifhere the K factor = 0,35 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 2. | Imprint lithography equipment capable of producing features of 45 nm or less; Note: 3B001.f.2. includes: | | | | --- | --- | | — | Micro contact printing tools | | | | | --- | --- | | — | Hot embossing tools | | | | | --- | --- | | — | Nano-imprint lithography tools | | | | | --- | --- | | — | Step and flash imprint lithography (S-FIL) tools | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 3. | Equipment specially designed for mask making having all of the following: | | | | --- | --- | | a. | A deflected focussed electron beam, ion beam or “laser” beam; and | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | b. | Having any of the following: | | | | --- | --- | | 1. | A full-width half-maximum (FWHM) spot size smaller than 65 nm and an image placement less than 17 nm (mean + 3 sigma); or | | | | | --- | --- | | 2. | Not used; | | | | | --- | --- | | 3. | A second-layer overlay error of less than 23 nm (mean + 3 sigma) on the mask; | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 4. | Equipment designed for device processing using direct writing methods, having all of the following: | | | | --- | --- | | a. | A deflected focused electron beam; and | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | b. | Having any of the following: | | | | --- | --- | | 1. | A minimum beam size equal to or smaller than 15 nm; or | | | | | --- | --- | | 2. | An overlay error less than 27 nm (mean + 3 sigma);’ | | | |

---
Exhibit 32.1
                                                               ------------


             STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
             SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      The undersigned, Mary Lynn D. Lenz, is the President and Chief
Executive Officer of Slade's Ferry Bancorp. (the "Company"). This statement
is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2004 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

A)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
      78o(d)); and

B)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
      Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the
Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the
Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It
is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

Date:  May 13, 2004                    /s/ Mary Lynn D. Lenz
       ------------                    -------------------------------------
                                       Mary Lynn D. Lenz
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
CHIEF JUSTICE

 CAROLYN WRIGHT

JUSTICES

 DAVID L. BRIDGES

 MOLLY FRANCIS

 DOUGLAS S. LANG

 ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

 ROBERT M. FILLMORE

 LANA MYERS

 DAVID EVANS

 DAVID LEWIS

 ADA BROWN

 CRAIG STODDART

 BILL WHITEHILL

 DAVID J. SCHENCK

Court of

S

Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

600 COMMERCE STREET, SUITE 200

DALLAS, TEXAS 75202

(214) 712-3400

LISA MATZ

CLERK OF THE COURT

(214) 712-3450

lisa.matz@5th.txcourts.gov

GAYLE HUMPA

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR

(214) 712-3434

gayle.humpa@5th.txcourts.gov

FACSIMILE

(214) 745-1083

INTERNET

HTTP://5TH.TXCOURTS.GOV

August 27, 2015

Katherine Drew

Dallas County Public Defender’s Office

133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-2

Dallas, TX 75207

Lori Ordiway

Dallas County District Attorney’s Office

133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19

Dallas, TX 75207

RE: 05-15-01022-CR

Lauro Arizpe v. The State of Texas

Counsel:

After reviewing the documents before it, the Court questions its jurisdiction over the appeal. 

Specifically, the notice of appeal reflects that sentence was imposed on July 8, 2015. No motion for new trial 

was filed; therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was due by August 7, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). 

Appellant’s notice of appeal is file-stamped August 17, 2015, ten days late. The Court cannot determine from 

the envelope in which it appears the pro se notice of appeal was delivered to the trial court whether it was 

mailed and, if so, the date of mailing. Moreover, although the notice of appeal was filed within the fifteen-day 

period provided by rule 26.3, no extension motion was filed in this Court within that same fifteen-day period. 

See id. 26.3(a), (b). Therefore, it appears we have no jurisdiction over the appeal.

So that the Court may determine the threshold issue of jurisdiction, appellant is directed to file a letter 

brief regarding the jurisdictional question by September 8, 2015. The State is directed to file any response by 

September 18, 2015. Any party relying on information not in the record before this Court must obtain a 

supplemental record containing that information.

 

After it has reviewed the jurisdictional briefs, the Court will either dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction or notify the parties by letter that the Court has jurisdiction over the appeal and of any pending 

deadlines.

Sincerely,

/s/ Lisa Matz, Clerk of the Court

ltr:mrh
# f ^ Lufthans a Techni k .:pABTIvlENTO F ^AM?;P0RTAT10N^

1/ 5 V J 

## ^ 

## 11:5 3 Lufthans a Techni k

AG Postfac h 6 3 0 3 00 , D-2231 3 Hambur g Docke t Managemen t Facility U . S . Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S E Wes t Buildin g Groun d Floo r Roo m W12-140 . Washington , D C 2059 0 Ihr e Zeiche n You rReferenc e Unser e Zeichen/Datu m Ou rReference/Dat e HA M TT/ L s y 23 . Dez . 1 0 Telefon/Telefa x Telephone/Telefa x +49-40 - 5070853 2

Petitio n fo rExemptio n - FA R 26.1 1 fo ra/ ci n "privat e us e only " ST C No . ST02675N Yo n 737-700iGW , l\/IS N 3595 9

T o who m I t mayconcern , Lufthan s Techni k

A G (LHT

) herewit h request s exemptio n fro m 14GF R 26.1 1 fo r STC No . ST02675N Yo n 737-700IGW , MS N 35959 . Reason : Subj . ST C i s restricte d t o privat e us e only , a s state d i n th e limitatio n sectio n o fth e ST C o rrelate d exemptions . A/ C operatio n i s neithe rperforme d unde r§12 1 o r§129 , no rwil l th e operato radop t maintenanc e requirement s specifie d I n §121.1109 . Considerations : Subj . ST C I s relate d t o a VI P cabi n Installation . Th e airplan e I s no t configure d t o b e operate d a s a n ai rcarrie ro rfo rcommo n carriage . Th e privat e operato rwoul d no t b e require d t o incorporat e th e DT data , no ri s I t likel ytha t h e wil l d o s o I n future . Grantin g th e petitio n fo rexemptio n woul d b e I n publi cinteres t becaus e i t woul d significantl yreduc e workloa d o n FA

Aside . Furthermor e th e generatio n o fth e DTdat a fo rthi s aircraft woul d b e ver y costl yt o LHT , wit h n o perspectiv e o fcompensation . Gesellschaflsrechtlich e Angaben ,HA M TT/ L sy/23 . Dez . 1 0 ST

C No . ST02675N Yo n 737-700IGW , MS N 3595 9 Pag e 2 Achang e fro m privat e t o commercia l operatio n woul d requir e a n amendmen t t o th e operationall y limite d STC . Thi s proces s woul d b e followe d b yth e FA Aan d woul d consequentl yresul t Int o consi deratio n o fFA R 2 6 requirements . A n exemptio n woul d no t adversel yaffect safetyi n th e contex t o fth e 14CF R 26.1 1 requirements .

Pleas e confir m tha t FA

Aca n gran t a n exemptio n fo ra.m . ST C limite d t o "private " an d "no t fo rhire " use .

Sincerel y Manage rCertificatio n Lufthans a Techni k

Offic e o fAin/vorthlnes s 

# 1
427 A.2d 1214

#### Commonwealth v. Skokowski, Appellant.

Submitted September 13, 1979.

Francis P. Burns, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;

Chester B. Muroski, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and WATKINS and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.