alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [Report No. 2894]

# SUMMARY:

Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of these documents is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by September 2, 2009. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: In The Matter of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Grants and Church Rock, New Mexico) (Docket No. MB-05-263)

NUMBER OF PETITIONS FILED: 1

Federal Communications Commission

Marlene H. Dortch,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-19668 Filed 8-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-S
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 306.40 Execution of assignments.

The assignment of a registered security should be executed by the owner, or his or her authorized representative, in the presence of an individual authorized to certify assignments. All assignments must be made on the backs of the securities, unless otherwise authorized by the Bureau. An assignment by mark (X) must be witnessed not only by a certifying individual, but also by at least one other person, who should add an endorsement substantially as follows: “Witness to signature by mark,” followed by the witness' signature and address.

[59 FR 59036, Nov. 15, 1994, as amended by 64 FR 38126, July 15, 1999]
40220.

#### MONTGOMERY v. PICKLE et al.

Erankum, Judge.

1. Where in a trover action for described personal property, the defendants made a motion for a summary judgment based on the deposition of the plaintiff and the pleadings on file in the case, the burden was on the movants to show that they were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and that there was no genuine issue of fact to be decided by a jury. *Code Ann. Ch.*110-12; *Motorola &c. Electronics v. South Ga. &c. Co.,*104 Ga. App. 376, 382 (121 SE2d 672).

2. The purpose of a motion for a summary judgment is to eliminate a jury trial where it would be unnecessary; and where the evidence introduced upon the hearing of the motion shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in the case, it is proper for the trial judge to grant a summary judgment for the party entitled thereto. *Scales v. Peevy,*103 Ga. App. 42, 46 (2) (118 SE2d 193).

*273Decided September 4, 1963.

*Chas. W. Anderson,*for plaintiff in error.

*James A. Able, Jr.,*contra.

3. Where, in a case of the nature indicated above, after the defendants had taken the deposition of the plaintiff, they made a motion for a summary judgment, which motion was duly served on the plaintiff, and where the motion recited that it was based on the deposition and the pleadings in the case, and where the deposition with all reasonable deductions or inferences therefrom demanded a finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, if the plaintiff was to overcome this showing, he had the burden of making a counter showing at the time of the hearing on the motion for a summary judgment, and upon his failure to do so, it was proper for the court to grant the summary judgment. *Scales v. Peevy,*103 Ga. App. 42, supra.

4. The deposition of the plaintiff in the instant case, when given a reasonable construction, affirmatively showed that the defendants named in the trover action had never had possession of the personal property sought to be recovered, nor had they converted it, and such evidence, therefore, demanded a judgment for the defendants.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
#### American Foundry Division of Chrysler Corporation *v.*Review Board of Employment Security Division et al.

[No. 20,017.

Filed September 9, 1964.]

*349
      *George P. Ryan, Alan T. Nolan*and *lee, Miller, Donadio & Ryan,*of counsel, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.

*Edwin K. Steers,*Attorney General and *Keith Campbell,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee, Review Board.

*Lynnville G. Miles,*of Indianapolis, for appellee, LaChester C. Shelton.

Faulconer, P. J.

Appellant asks us to reverse the decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division on the ground that such decision is contrary to law. The findings of the Review Board that the claimant did not voluntarily leave his work without good cause and was not discharged for misconduct in connection with his work are findings of ultimate fact, *Dormeyer Industries*v. *Review Board, etc.*(1962), 133 Ind. App.*350500, 507, 183 N. E. 2d 351; *National Furn. Mfg. Co.*v. *Review*Board, *etc.*(1960), 131 Ind. App. 260, 266, 170 N. E. 2d 381; *Nordhoff*v. *Rev. Bd. Ind. Emp. Sec. Div. et al.*(1959), 129 Ind. App. 378, 382, 156 N. E. 2d 787; *Hollingsworth Tool Wks.*v. *Rev. Bd. Emp. Sec. Div.*(1949), 119 Ind. App. 191, 194, 84 N. E. 2d 895; which cannot be disturbed by this court unless from a review of the evidence reasonable men would be bound to reach a different conclusion. *Achenbach*v. *Review Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div.*(1962), 242 Ind. 655, 660, 179 N. E. 2d 873; *Adams et al.*v. *Rev. Bd. Ind. Emp. Sec. Div. et al.*(1957), 237 Ind. 63, 69, 143 N. E. 2d 564; *Decker*v. *Review Board of Indiana Employ. Sec. Div.*(1963), 134 Ind. App. 164, 186 N. E. 2d 890, 891; *Ogilvie*v. *Review Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div.*(1962), 133 Ind. App. 664, 673, 184 N. E. 2d 817; *Massengale*v. *Rev. Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div.*(1961), 132 Ind. App. 587, 593, 178 N. E. 2d 557.

A review of the evidence most favorable to appellees discloses sufficient evidence, in our opinion, to sustain the findings of the Board. Under the facts made apparent by the record in this case we think that reasonable men would not be bound to reach a conclusion different from that arrived at by the Review Board.

The decision of the Review Board herein appealed from is affirmed.

Carson, Cooper and Ryan, JJ., concur.

Note.—Reported in 201 N. E. 2d 220.
www.gpo.gov

#### Part B—Tax Treatment

        

#### SUBCHAPTER II—MAINE INDIAN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

        

#### SUBCHAPTER III—FLORIDA INDIAN (MICCOSUKEE) LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

#### Part A—Florida Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1982

        

#### Part B—Miccosukee Settlement

        

#### SUBCHAPTER IV—CONNECTICUT INDIAN LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

        

#### SUBCHAPTER V—MASSACHUSETTS INDIAN LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

        

#### SUBCHAPTER VI—FLORIDA INDIAN (SEMINOLE) LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

        

#### SUBCHAPTER VII—WASHINGTON INDIAN (PUYALLUP) LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

        

#### SUBCHAPTER VIII—SENECA NATION (NEW YORK) LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

        

#### SUBCHAPTER IX—MOHEGAN NATION (CONNECTICUT) LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

        

#### SUBCHAPTER X—CROW LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARIE BAYOL,

Appellant,

v.

JEAN GERARD BAYOL,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1765

[October 25, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Jessica Ticktin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2004-DR-002032-

XXXX-SB.

Marie Bayol, West Palm Beach, pro se.

Craig A. Boudreau, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 212.10 Safe harbor. ( a ) *Protection during examination and pending review.* A financial institution that complies in good faith with this part shall not be liable to a creditor that initiates a garnishment order, or for any penalties under State law, contempt of court, civil procedure, or other law for failing to honor a garnishment order, for account activity during: ( 1 ) The two business days following the financial institution's receipt of a garnishment order during which the financial institution must determine if the United States or a State child support enforcement agency has attached or included a Notice of Right to Garnish Federal Benefits, as set forth in § 212.4; or
( 2 ) The time between the financial institution's receipt of the garnishment order and the date by which the financial institution must perform the account review, as set forth in § 212.5.
( b ) *Protection when protecting or freezing funds.* A financial institution that complies in good faith with this part shall not be liable to a creditor that initiates a garnishment order for any protected amounts, to an account holder for any frozen amounts, or for any penalties under State law, contempt of court, civil procedure, or other law for failing to honor a garnishment order in cases where: ( 1 ) A benefit agency has deposited a benefit payment into an account during the lookback period, or
( 2 ) The financial institution has determined that the order was obtained by the United States or issued by a State child support enforcement agency by following the procedures in § 212.4.
( c ) *Protection for providing additional information to account holder.* A financial institution shall not be liable for providing in good faith any optional information in the notice to the account holder, as set forth in § 212.7(c) and (d).
( d ) *Protection for financial institutions from other potential liabilities.* A financial institution that complies in good faith with this part shall not be liable for: ( 1 ) Bona fide errors that occur despite reasonable procedures maintained by the financial institution to prevent such errors in complying with the provisions of this part;
( 2 ) Customary clearing and settlement adjustments that affect the balance in an account, including a protected amount, such as deposit reversals caused by the return of unpaid items, or debit card transactions settled for amounts higher than the amounts originally authorized; or
( 3 ) Honoring an account holder's express written instruction, that is both dated and provided by the account holder to the financial institution following the date on which it has been served a particular garnishment order, to use an otherwise protected amount to satisfy the order.
#### § 1027.300 General.

Dealers in precious metals, precious stones, or jewels are subject to the reporting requirements set forth and cross referenced in this subpart. Dealers in precious metals, precious stones, or jewels should also refer to subpart C of part 1010 of this Chapter for reporting requirements contained in that subpart which apply to dealers in precious metals, precious stones, or jewels.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 19 (Friday, January 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1950]



[[Page 5662]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group; Developmental Biology 
Subcommittee.
    Date: February 26-27, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Doubletree Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, 
Washington, DC.
    Contact Person: Norman Chang, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 
5b01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1485, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfdcd7ded1d8d1ffd2ded6d391d1d6d791d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="23404b424d444d634e424a4f0d4d4a4b0d444c55">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 23, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-1950 Filed 1-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 34.600 General.

This subpart describes policies and procedures applicable to the NOAA RESTORE Act Science Program. The program's purpose is to carry out research, observation, and monitoring to support, to the maximum extent practicable, the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem, fish stocks, fish habitat, and the recreational, commercial, and charter fishing industries in the Gulf of Mexico.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54544, Sept. 26, 2007.

§ 10.22 Diligence as to accuracy. ( a ) *In general.* A practitioner must exercise due diligence— ( 1 ) In preparing or assisting in the preparation of, approving, and filing tax returns, documents, affidavits, and other papers relating to Internal Revenue Service matters;
( 2 ) In determining the correctness of oral or written representations made by the practitioner to the Department of the Treasury; and
( 3 ) In determining the correctness of oral or written representations made by the practitioner to clients with reference to any matter administered by the Internal Revenue Service.
( b ) *Reliance on others.* Except as modified by §§ 10.34 and 10.37, a practitioner will be presumed to have exercised due diligence for purposes of this section if the practitioner relies on the work product of another person and the practitioner used reasonable care in engaging, supervising, training, and evaluating the person, taking proper account of the nature of the relationship between the practitioner and the person.
( c ) *Effective/applicability date.* Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable on September 26, 2007. Paragraph (b) of this section is applicable beginning June 12, 2014.
[T.D. 9011, 67 FR 48765, July 26, 2002, as amended by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54547, Sept. 26, 2007; T.D. 9668, 79 FR 33693, June 12, 2014]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0 652 IN THE MATTER OF: C.L.D., A Youth in Need of Care. **ORDER** Upon consideration of the State’s Unopposed Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal, submitted by the Appellee, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is granted : the briefing schedule is stayed and the record on appeal shall be supple me nted with the following Thirteenth Ju di ci alDistrict Court record : State v. [ N.J.D .], Cause No. D C - 21 - 0508. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve all parties of record and the Clerk of District Court, Yellowstone County , with this Order.

K FS

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 8 2022

02/08/2022
Case Number: DA 21-0652
| (logo) plante moran | **Plante & Moran, PLLC**

10 South Riverside Plaza

9th floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: 312.207.1040

Fax: 312.207.1066

plantemoran.com |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

 

We have examined National TaxSearch, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, set forth in Item 1122(d) of theSecurity and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the National Tax SearchTaxQ system (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016.The Company has determined that only certain servicing criteria,1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi),1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to the activities performedby it with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Company hasdetermined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) ofthe SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by it withrespect to the Platform covered by this report.

 

Management is responsible forthe Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliancewith the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination wasconducted in accordance with 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 a selection of a sample of transactionsand compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination periodand determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performedthose activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing ofselected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations,reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may haveoccurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this reportfor the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with theservicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertionthat the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of andfor the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairly stated in allmaterial respects.

 

 

/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC

 

Chicago, IL

January 27, 2017

 

 

(logo) Praxity 

MEMBER

GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF 

INDEPENDENT FIRMS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000857614
<NAME> NORTH OAKS REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      32,136,534
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,136,534
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,136,534
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  453,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (680,701)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
(logo) C-III | C-IIIAsset Management 

 

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

**C-III Asset Management LLC**

 

 

The undersigned, Barry Davis,President of C-III Asset Management LLC (*f/k/a Centerline Servicing LLC*),the Special Servicer under that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement datedas of November 1, 2016, relating to the **Wells Fargo Commercial MortgageTrust 2016-C36, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C36**(the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), hereby certifies as follows:

 

1.       a review of the activities of the Special Servicer andof its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement during thecalendar year 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) has been made under the undersigned’ssupervision;

 

2.       to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based onsuch review, the Special Servicer maintained an effective internal controlsystem relating to its servicing of the Mortgage Loans serviced by it and hasfulfilled in all material respects its obligations under the Pooling andServicing Agreement throughout the Reporting Period.

 

Capitalized terms nototherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Pooling andServicing Agreement.

 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, as of the 1st day of March, 2019, I have hereuntosigned my name.

 

 

/s/ Barry Davis

**Barry Davis**, President

C-III Asset Management LLC, a

Delaware limited liabilitycompany 

 

 

WFCM 2016-C36