alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Donald M. Rohan, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[803 NYS2d 818]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1997. He maintained an office for the practice of law in New Jersey, where he was admitted in 1996.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey suspended respondent from practice for a period of three months, effective August 10, 2005. The Supreme Court conditioned respondent’s reinstatement on submission of proof of his fitness to practice law as attested to by a mental health professional approved by its Office of Attorney Ethics. The court based its suspension order on a decision of its Disciplinary Review Board which concluded that respondent was guilty of professional misconduct, including, among other things, neglect of client matters and misrepresentations to courts, clients, and the law firm which employed him.

Petitioner moves for an order imposing reciprocal discipline *917upon respondent *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has not appeared on the motion. We grant the motion and further conclude that respondent should be reciprocally suspended from practice for a period of three months *(see e.g. Matter of Robinson,*262 AD2d 865 [1999]; *Matter of Gendel,*233 AD2d 613 [1996]). Upon any application for reinstatement, respondent shall make the showing required by this Court’s rules *(see*22 NYCRR 806.12), including proof of his reinstatement to practice in New Jersey and submission of psychological opinion that he has the capacity to practice law *(see e.g. Matter of Maffongelli,*4 AD3d 613 [2004]; *Matter of Wheatley,*304 AD2d 1039 [2003]).

Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from practice for a period of three months, effective immediately, and until farther order of this Court; and it is further ordered that respondent, while suspended, is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; respondent is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority; or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice with relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended or disbarred attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              67
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,962
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,192
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,343
<PP&E>                                           9,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,923
<BONDS>                                          8,126
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         32
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,338
<SALES>                                          8,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,660
<CGS>                                            5,455
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,455
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,451
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    405
<INCOME-TAX>                                       146
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                259
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       259
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Matthew W., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 417]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated February 25, 2004, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated December 23, 2003, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months is dismissed as academic, as the period of placement has expired *(see Matter of Shanita V.,*7 AD3d 804 [2004]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

*669Resolution of issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented are primarily questions for the trier of fact *(see Matter of Kashawn B.,*4 AD3d 469, 470 [2004]; *cf. People v Calabria,*3 NY3d 80, 82 [2004]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(cf People v Dixson,*21 AD3d 566 [2005]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree was not against the weight of the evidence *(cf*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Chilcott,*21 AD3d 424, 425 [2005]). Crane, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 81 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 81

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 repealing the twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 1995

     Mr. Hoyer (for himself, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Berman, Mr. Skaggs, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Frank 
   of Massachusetts, and Mr. Pallone) 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 
 repealing the twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States is hereby repealed.''.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered October )0 , 2012 

In The 

Court of appeals:4 

jfiftb 3Bit4tritt of Mexat4 at riallass 

No. 05-12-00839-CR 

No. 05-12-00840-CR 

JUAN FRANCISCO TURCIOS, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-70886-P, F11-70896-P 

ORDER 

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant's 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant's presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant's absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel. 
DAVID L. BRIDG 

JUSTICE 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order. 

The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.
#### Thelite Regina et al., Appellants, v Broadway-Bronx Motel Company et al., Respondents.

[804 NYS2d 305]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered April 27, 2004, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the complaint against defendant In-Town Motel Corp. (In-Town) on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiffs may not rely on the relation back doctrine *(Buran v Coupal,*87 NY2d 173, 177 [1995]; CPLR 203 [b]) since they have failed to demonstrate that defendant Broadway-Bronx Motel Company (Broadway) and In-Town were united in interest. “[U]nity of interest will not be found unless there is some relationship between the parties giving rise to the vicarious liability of one for the conduct of the other” *(Mercer v 203 E. 72nd St. Corp.,*300 AD2d 105, 106 [2002]; *Valmon v 4 M & M Corp.,*291 AD2d 343 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 611 [2002]). Plaintiffs’ suspicions and conjecture as to the relationship between In-Town and Broadway find no support in the record, which fails to indicate that the two were related, except as landlord and tenant. Nor is there evidence raising a triable issue as to whether In-Town’s identity as the operator of the Motel was actively concealed from plaintiff. In Broadway’s answer, it denied operation of the Motel, putting plaintiffs on notice that a proper party had not been discovered. Neither Broadway nor the insurer were duty bound to inform plaintiffs that they had not sued a proper party *(see McGee v Bells Supermarket,*177 AD2d 975 [1991]; *Hart v Marriott Intl.,*304 AD2d 1057, 1060 n 3 [2003]). Plaintiff made no relevant discovery demands on this topic until after the statute of limitations had already run.

In any event, the court properly dismissed the complaint as *256against all defendants on the ground that the record presented no triable issue as to the foreseeability of the assault upon plaintiff in defendants’ motel. At most, plaintiffs have demonstrated ambient neighborhood crime, which was insufficient to raise an issue as to the foreseeability of criminal activity within the motel *(see Buckeridge v Broadie,*5 AD3d 298, 300 [2004]; *Johnson v City of New York,*7 AD3d 577, 578 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 702 [2004]; *Evans v 141 Condominium Corp.,*258 AD2d 293, 295 [1999]; *Todorovich v Columbia Univ.,*245 AD2d 45, 47 [1997], *lv denied*92 NY2d 805 [1998]).

The complaint was properly dismissed against Broadway on the additional ground that it was an out-of-possession landlord with limited rights of reentry, and as such it could not be held liable for the assaults *(see DeLeon v Port Auth. of N.Y.*& *N.J.,*306 AD2d 146 [2003]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

BIRMINGHAM 

FLIGHT CENTER, INC. 

Respondent 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 

Case No. 2012S0090053 

NOTICE OF INTERLOCATORY APPEAL OF RIGHT 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§§ 13.205(b) and 13.219(c)(3), Complainant files this notice of 

interlocutory appeal of right from the Administrative Law Judge's June 3, 2016 Order1 Granting 

Respondent's Motion for Alternative Sanctions in the above-captioned matter, on grounds that 

the Administrative Law Judge exceeded her sanction authority under the FAA Civil Penalty 

Rules of Practice when imposing sanctions on Complainant. 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.219(d), the attached Complainant's Brief in Support of 

Interlocutory Appeal, including exhibits thereto, is submitted as the supporting documents for 

this interlocutory appeal of right. 

1 The ALJ served her June 3, 2016 Order by U.S. Mail. This Notice of Interlocutory Appeal of Right is timely filed. 

See 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.211(e) and 13.219(d). 
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of June, 2016. 

Patricia A. McNall 

Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement 

By:~,~--

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

1701 Columbia Ave. 

College Park, GA 30337 

Tel: 404-305-5200 

Fax: 404-305-5223 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on June 17, 2016, the foregoing Notice oflnterlocutory Appeal of Right and 

Complainant's Brief in Support oflnterlocutory Appeal of Right (inclusive of exhibits) were 

filed with the FAA Decisionmaker and the Hearing Docket Clerk via Federal Express as follows: 

Original and One Copy: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

In addition, I certify that on June 17, 2016 the foregoing Notice of Interlocutory Appeal 

of Right and Complainant's Brief in Support oflnterlocutory Appeal of Right (inclusive of 

exhibits) were served via Federal Express as follows: 

One Copy: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

East Building Ground Floor 

Washington, DC 20590 

Paul R. Borth 

Counsel for Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

LegaM~Mt!m 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Dated
# Euroopan unionin C 311A/19.

| | ISSN 1725-2490 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 311A |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 49. vuosikerta19. joulukuuta 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2490

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 311A

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

49. vuosikerta19. joulukuuta 2006

---

| Ilmoitusnumero | Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Tiedotteita |
| | Neuvosto |
| 2006/C 311A/1 | Ilmoitus avoinna olevasta audiovisuaalialan neuvonantajan toimesta (Viitenumero CONS/AD/046) | 1 |

Ilmoitusnumero

Sisältö

Sivu

III   Tiedotteita

Neuvosto

2006/C 311A/1

Ilmoitus avoinna olevasta audiovisuaalialan neuvonantajan toimesta (Viitenumero CONS/AD/046)

1

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

III Tiedotteita

Neuvosto

| 19.12.2006 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | CA 311/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2006

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

CA 311/1

---

ILMOITUS AVOINNA OLEVASTA AUDIOVISUAALIALAN NEUVONANTAJAN TOIMESTA

(Viitenumero CONS/AD/046)

(2006/C 311 A/01)

Euroopan unionin neuvoston pääsihteeristössä on haettavana avoin toimi pääosaston F (lehdistö, viestintä, protokolla) yksikössä 1 ”Lehdistöpalvelu”.

Valitulle hakijalle tarjotaan väliaikaisen toimihenkilön sopimusta ura-alueella AD palkkaluokassa 10 neljän vuoden ajaksi (josta kuusi kuukautta on koeaikaa). Sopimus voidaan uusia vain kerran enintään kahden vuoden ajaksi.

Lisätietoja avoinna olevasta toimesta ja hakemuksen jättämisohjeet saa neuvoston www-sivuilla olevasta ilmoituksesta osoitteesta

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

Hakemus on jätettävä viimeistään 19. tammikuuta 2007, mistä postileimaa pidetään osoituksena.

---
Exhibit 35.17



LOGO

2017 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)

Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) dated as of November 1, 2016 by and among CCRE Commercial Mortgage
Securities, L.P. as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, AEGON USA Realty Advisors, LLC as Potomac Mills Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as
Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer, Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent, and Custodian relating to the CFCRE 2016-C6 Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2016-C6 (CFCRE 2016-C6)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the Special Servicer) herein certifies to the
following:



| | 1. | All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period), under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects throughout the Reporting
Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|              |  |                                |  |  |  |                    
|------------- |  | ------------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------
|Certified by: |  | /s/ Adam Singer                |  |  |  | Date: March 1, 2018
|              |  | Adam Singer, Managing Director |  |  |  |
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.

§ 301.6401-1 Amounts treated as overpayments. ( a ) The term “overpayment” includes: ( 1 ) Any payment of any internal revenue tax which is assessed or collected after the expiration of the period of limitation applicable thereto.
( 2 ) Any amount allowable for a taxable year as credits under sections 31 (relating to tax withheld on wages), 39 (relating to certain uses of gasoline, special fuels, and, lubricating oil), 43 (relating to earned income credit), and 667(b) (relating to taxes paid by certain trusts) which exceeds the tax imposed by subtitle A of the Code (reduced by the credits allowable under subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Code, other than the credits allowable under sections 31, 39, and 43) for such year.
( b ) An amount paid as tax shall not be considered not to constitute an overpayment solely by reason of the fact that there was no tax liability in respect of which such amount was paid.
[T.D. 7204, 37 FR 17158, Aug. 25, 1972, as amended by T.D. 7537, 43 FR 13878, Apr. 3, 1978]
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

# ** **

# ** **

# **ANNUALSTATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as ofOctober 1, 2015, by and among Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial MortgageInc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as SpecialServicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, U.S. Bank NationalAssociation, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar,Authenticating Agent and Custodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2015-C25 (the "Agreement").  Capitalizedterms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section13.9 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of theactivities of the Master  Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance perthe Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2018.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

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