alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(logo) Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

 

 

Pooling andServicing Agreement (the "Poolingand ServicingAgreement") dated as ofFebruary 1, 2017 by and among BarclaysCommercial Mortgage Securities LLC as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC asSpecial Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer relating to the BBCMSMortgage Trust 2017-C1, Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series, 2017-C1 **(BBCMS 20****1****7-C****1****)**

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the"Special Servicer") herein certifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activities and performanceof such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement areperformed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicing activities andperformance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018 toDecember 31, 2018 (the "Reporting Period") in accordance with thePooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the termsof the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for theReporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and statusthereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, ManagingDirector 

 

Date: March 1 2019
#### § 7.1 Purpose.

Provisions defining the right, title, and interest of the Government in and to an invention made by a Government employee under various circumstances and the duties of Government agencies with respect thereto are set forth in Executive Order 10096, 15 FR 389, as amended (35 U.S.C. 266 note). Further definition of the circumstances under which the Government will acquire the right to a patent in such an invention or a nonexclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license in the invention, and the procedures for the determination of these interests, are set forth in the regulations issued under that Executive order by the Patent Office, 37 CFR part 100. The purpose of this part 7 is to implement for the Treasury Department the foregoing Executive order and regulations of the Patent Office by (a) bringing to the attention of Treasury employees the law and procedure governing their rights to, and interest in, inventions made by them, (b) defining responsibility within the Department for making the necessary determinations, and, (c) establishing internal procedures for action in conformity with the Executive order and the Patent Office regulations.
§ 542.414 Significant; significant transaction. In determining, for purposes of § 542.201(a)(13), whether a transaction is significant, or transactions are significant, the Secretary of the Treasury may consider the totality of the facts and circumstances. As a general matter, the Secretary may consider some or all of the following factors: ( a ) *Size, number, and frequency.* The size, number, and frequency of transactions performed over a period of time, including whether the transactions are increasing or decreasing over time and the rate of increase or decrease.
( b ) *Nature.* The nature of the transaction(s), including the type, complexity, and commercial purpose of the transaction(s).
( c ) *Level of awareness; pattern of conduct.* ( 1 ) Whether the transaction(s) is performed with the involvement or approval of management or only by clerical personnel; and
( 2 ) Whether the transaction(s) is part of a pattern of conduct or the result of a business development strategy.
( d ) *Nexus.* The proximity between the foreign person engaging in the transaction(s) and the persons blocked pursuant § 542.201 or subject to the prohibitions of § 542.212.
( e ) *Impact.* The impact of the transaction(s) on the objectives of the Caesar Act, including: ( 1 ) The economic or other benefit conferred or attempted to be conferred on a sanctioned person blocked pursuant to § 542.201 or subject to the prohibitions of § 542.212; and
( 2 ) Whether and how the transaction(s) contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems for such weapons, to support for international terrorism, or to the suppression of human rights.
( f ) *Deceptive practices.* Whether the transaction(s) involves an attempt to obscure or conceal the actual parties or true nature of the transaction(s) or to evade sanctions.
( g ) *Other relevant factors.* Such other factors that the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's designee deems relevant on a case-by-case basis in determining the significance of a transaction(s).
( h ) *Applicability.* For the purposes of this part, a transaction is not significant if U.S. persons would not require a specific license from OFAC to participate in it.
[89 FR 48319, June 6, 2024]
#### F. H. Jackson v. Gordon Young, et al Co-executors

5-4760

435 S.W. 2d 801

Opinion Delivered January 13, 1969

*Robert W. Faulkner*for appellant.

*Wenclell O. Epperson*and *Bridges, Young, Matthews & Davis*for appellees.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

This appeal by Appellant F. H. Jackson is dismissed for failure to comply with our rule 9 (d). The only portion of the record here abstracted is the testimony of Dave Davenport and from this alone we are unable to know how the trial court-committed error in refusing a continuance or why the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elmer H. THOMASSEN; Joan Thomassen, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 99-56808.

D.C. No. CV-78-01731-R.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, *2001*
      *1*
      *.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2001.

*482Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Elmer and Joan Thomassen appeal pro se the district court’s order denying their motion to vacate its renewal of judgment orders which the district court had granted due to the Thomassens’ 1979 tax deficiency. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the legal question whether the discharge in bankruptcy affected the judgment lien, *see United States v. Hemmen,*51 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.

The Thomassens contend that the 1979 judgment orders, which were renewed in 1989, were discharged by their 1991 bankruptcy discharge order. We disagree. Because the renewal of judgment orders were limited to the government’s *in rem*rights against its pre-petition property interests, *cf. Isom v. United States, (In re Isom),*901 F.2d 744, 746 (9th Cir.1990), the district court properly denied the Thomassens’ motion to vacate the renewal of the judgment orders.

We also disagree with the Thomas-sens’ contention that Judge Real should have been disqualified from this case. The Thomassens failed to show that Judge Real was biased against them from an extrajudicial source. *See United States v. Sibla,*624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir.1980).

The Thomassens’ other contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### § 594.318 Agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.

The term *agency or instrumentality of a foreign state* has the meaning given that term in section 1603(b) of title 28, United States Code.

[84 FR 35312, July 23, 2019]
EX - 10.18 2012.6.30-10K


 EXHIBIT 10.18


AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Amendment No. 6 (this “Amendment’) dated as of October 1, 2011, is made by and between Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Charles N. Martin, Jr. (the “Executive”).


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive executed a certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of September 23, 2004, as further amended (collectively, the “EA”), to secure the services of the Executive as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board; and


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish the Executive’s base salary set forth in Section 6(a) of the EA to be increased to $1,250,000, effective as of October 1, 2011.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that the EA is amended as follows:


1.    Defined Terms.  Except for those terms defined above, the definitions of capitalized terms used in this Amendment are as provided in the EA.


2.    Amendment to Section 6(a).  Section 6(a) of the EA entitled “Base Salary” is hereby  deleted and replaced with the following new Section 6(a):


“(a)  Base Salary.  Effective October 1, 2011, the Executive’s base salary hereunder shall be $1,250,000 per year, payable semi-monthly. Commencing July 1, 2012, the Board shall review such base salary at least annually and make such adjustments from time to time as it may deem advisable, but the base salary shall not at any time be reduced from the base salary in effect from time to time.”


3.    Ratification.  All other provisions of the EA remain unchanged and are hereby  ratified by the Company and the Executive.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by   its duly authorized officer and the Executive has executed this Amendment, each as of the day and year first set forth above.


	
			
	 
	 
	VANGUARD HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ James H. Spalding

	 
	 
	James H. Spalding

	 
	 
	Executive Vice President

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	EXECUTIVE:

	 
	 
	/s/ Charles N. Martin, Jr.

	 
	 
	Charles N. Martin, Jr.
# Botswana

55 items

        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Botswana	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Botswana	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance  		Performance and Ex-Post Evaluation of Criminal Justice Training Program [PDF]	  March 27, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Botswana	  March 11, 2020 
        -    		Botswana	  August 2, 2019 
        -    Report  		Botswana	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Botswana	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Botswana	  June 20, 2019 
        -    Report  		Botswana	  March 13, 2019 
        -    Report  		Botswana	  July 19, 2018 

previous page123456next page

Back to Top
#### CENTRAL FLORIDA TILE COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. SPERRY RAND CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. W-14.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 19, 1974.

*239John M. Steadham, Watson, Watson & Steadham, Gainesville, for appellant.

Harry C. Duncan, Clayton, Duncan, Johnston, Clayton, Quincey, Ireland & Felder, Gainesville, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment dismissing with prejudice its complaint which sought damages for a breach of an oral lease agreement. The basis for the appellee's motion to dismiss was that the alleged agreement was an executory contract for more than one year and was within the terms of the statute of frauds, and therefore the agreement was unenforceable.

We have heard oral argument in this cause and have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by the parties. It is our conclusion that the complaint filed below by appellant clearly states a cause of action. When considering a motion to dismiss, the allegations of the complaint must be taken as true. Here, there are allegations in the complaint that appellee signed and delivered to appellant written memoranda embodying the terms and conditions of the oral agreement to lease; that appellant, at appellee’s request, executed, sealed and redelivered to appellee a formal lease agreement; that appellant, in reliance on said agreement, took certain actions pursuant to the agreement ; and that appellant made changes and improvements in fulfillment of its obligation to lease to appellee. Thus, even assuming the statute of frauds were applicable to the oral agreement, the allegations of appellant’s complaint raise sufficient factual questions as to state a cause of action and withstand a motion to dismiss. For example, the allegations of the complaint raise questions of fact as to whether the written memoranda were sufficient and authenticated so as to comply with the statute of frauds, whether the appellee may be liable for services under an implied contract theory and whether the acts performed by appellant were exclusively referable to the oral agreement so as to constitute part performance or give rise to grounds for restitution on appellant’s behalf.

For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s complaint and we reverse. This cause is remanded to the court below for reinstatement of the complaint and further proceedings thereon.

Reversed and remanded.

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and DREW, E. HARRIS (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
40712.

#### BOWEN PRESS, INC. v. SOUTHEASTERN PRINTERS SUPPLY CORPORATION.

Felton, Chief Judge.

In an action to recover the full purchase price of a photoengraving machine sold to the plaintiff under an express warranty that the purchase was to be subject to the plaintiff’s complete approval, with no contractual provision for notice, where the plaintiff testified that it had notified the defendant-seller on numerous occasions of its dissatisfaction with the machine, had reminded the defendant of *759the money-back warranty at the time of payment for the machine, and had requested the defendant to remove, the machine, which was not done, and the defendant’s evidence was that the plaintiff had operated the machine continuously for almost two years and had had some operator problems but had not complained of the operation of the machine itself, it was a question for the jury to determine whether or not the plaintiff gave the seller notice of its dissatisfaction with the machine within a reasonable time after its acceptance of the machine so as to preserve its reliance upon the express warranty; therefore, the court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. *Bennett v. Brown,*28 Ga. App. 256 (110 SE 745); 41 ALR2d 817.

Decided May 22, 1964.

*Zachary & Hunter, John C. Hunter, W. E. Zachary,*for plaintiff in error.

*Claude Hambrick,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
- COVID-19
- COVID-19 Vaccine Deliveries
- Foreign Assistance
- Releases
- Bureau & Office Resources
- Global COVID-19 Summits
- Global Action Plan

HomeCOVID-19 Response and Recovery...Bureau and Office Resources for COVID-19

# 									Bureau and Office Resources for COVID-19							

-  Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor-  														COVID-19, Democracy, Good Governance, and Human Rights																											 
 
-  Educational and Cultural Affairs-  														Exchange Visitor Program Information on Coronavirus (COVID-19)																											 
 
-  Family Liaison Office-  														COVID-19: GCLO Crisis Management Resources																											 
 
-  Foreign Service Institute-  														FSI Training Status																											 
-  														Resources for Resilience from the Foreign Service Institute																											 
-  														Short-Term Housing Options from the Foreign Service Institute																											 
 
-  Office of Foreign Missions-  														Office of Foreign Missions: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Information and Resources																											 
 
-  Office of Global Partnerships-  														Office of Global Partnerships: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Information and Resources																											 
 
-  President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)-  														PEPFAR’s HIV Response in the Context of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)																											 
 
-  Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization -  														COVID-19 Resources for Government Contractors																											 
 
-  Under Secretary for Management-  March 2, 2023  														Department of State COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan																											 
 

Back to Top
# C_2005155EN.01002001.xml

| 25.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/20

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 10 March 2005

in Case T-288/00 Gardena Hotels Srl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(State aid - Commission decision declaring incompatible with the common market unlawful aid schemes and requiring repayment of incompatible aid - National procedure for repayment precluded - Action for annulment - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 155/39)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-288/00: Gardena Hotels Srl, Principessa Srl and Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere, established in Venice (Italy), represented by A. Bianchini, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: V. Di Bucci and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij, N.J. Forwood, I. Pelikánová, S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible in so far as it was brought by Gardena Hotels Srl and the Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere . |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible in so far as it was brought by Gardena Hotels Srl and the Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere .

| 2. | Gardena Hotels Srl shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Gardena Hotels Srl shall bear its own costs.

| 3. | The Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere shall bear its own costs and the Commission's costs incurred to date in connection with the action in so far as it was brought by the Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere shall bear its own costs and the Commission's costs incurred to date in connection with the action in so far as it was brought by the Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere.

| 4. | The Commission shall bear the costs it has incurred to date in connection with the action in so far as it was brought by Gardena Hotels Srl. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission shall bear the costs it has incurred to date in connection with the action in so far as it was brought by Gardena Hotels Srl.

| 5. | The remainder of the costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The remainder of the costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.

1

---
Exhibit 32

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
First Community Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, to the
officers best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

(a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

Dated this 14thday of August, 2012.



First Community Bancshares, Inc./s/ John M. MendezJohn M. MendezChief Executive Officer/s/ David D. BrownDavid D. BrownChief Financial Officer




68
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 283 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 283

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the business 
 deduction for any amount paid or incurred for regularly scheduled air 
  transportation to the extent such amount exceeds the normal tourist 
                  class fare for such transportation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Jacobs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the business 
 deduction for any amount paid or incurred for regularly scheduled air 
  transportation to the extent such amount exceeds the normal tourist 
                  class fare for such transportation.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 162 of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to trade or business 
expenses) is amended by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (p) 
and by inserting after subsection (n) the following new subsection:
    ``(o) Deduction for Regularly Scheduled Air Transportation Limited 
to Normal Tourist Class Fare.--
            ``(1) In general.--No deduction shall be allowed under 
        subsection (a) or under section 212 for any amount paid or 
        incurred for the transportation of any person by air on a 
        regularly scheduled flight to the extent that such amount 
        exceeds the normal tourist class fare for such transportation 
        on such flight.
            ``(2) Normal tourist class fare.--For purposes of paragraph 
        (1), the term `normal tourist class fare' means the lowest fare 
        charged for the transportation of a person by air on a 
        regularly scheduled flight determined without regard to any 
        special fares available to groups or certain persons or under 
        certain special conditions.''.
    (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to amounts 
paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of this Act for 
transportation beginning after such date.
                                 <all>
```