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







ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made to that
certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2016, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION,
as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON
TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and
Custodian, and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-CD2 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined
shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of
this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made
under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | ;To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master
Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.





|                  | 
|----------------- | 
|Leslie Hayton     | 
|Managing Director | 
|Wells Fargo Bank  | 





















confidential
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA CHRISTINA RICARDO LEON, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-72400 

Agency No. A095-451-384 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 29, 2022**

San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, BYBEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Maria Christina Ricardo-Leon seeks review of an August 14, 2017, 

decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied her motion to 

reopen her removal proceeding as time-barred. Petitioner argues that the BIA erred 

in denying the motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as 

provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 31 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

deny the petition.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Feng 

Gui Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009). Under that standard, we 

uphold the BIA’s decision unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law. 

Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014); Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 

773 (9th Cir. 2008). The BIA did not do so here. 

An alien subject to a final order of removal is generally limited to filing one 

motion to reopen, which must be filed within 90 days of entry of the order. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Petitioner’s final order of removal 

was issued in 2003, but her motion to reopen was filed on May 17, 2017—long after

the 90-day deadline—and she has not established that any statutory or regulatory 

exception applies. Petitioner does not dispute the BIA’s determination that she 

failed to offer any evidence of Mexico conditions in 2003, and Petitioner was 

required to submit “material” and previously unavailable evidence that, when 

considered, would establish her prima facie eligibility for relief. See Feng Gui Lin, 

588 F.3d at 986. Petitioner points to evidence that her close cousin was kidnapped 

and held for ransom in early 2017 and that crime has generally worsened in Mexico 

since she migrated to the United States, but neither of these circumstances satisfies 

the foregoing requirements. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in 

denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely. See Go, 744 F.3d at 609. 
3 

PETITION DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:13-cr-96

John T. Childs 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 12) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: May 17, 2013 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:13-cr-00096-JLG Doc #: 15 Filed: 05/17/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
D:\netsite-docs\lps92224\1999table.pdf
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****United States savings bonds earningsreport [electronic resource].
 
SuDoc Number:T 63.219:
Item Number:0970-A-17 (online)
CGP System Number:00061238
 
Date
Format
Nov 2010 - Oct 2011
PDF
May 2010 - Apr 2011
PDF
Nov 2009 - Oct 2010
PDF
May 2009 - Apr 2010
PDF
Nov 2008 - Oct 2009
PDF
May 2008 - Apr 2009
PDF
Nov 2007 - Oct 2008
PDF
May 2007 - Apr 2008
PDF
Nov 2006 - Oct 2007
PDF
May 2006 - Apr 2007
PDF
Nov 2005 - Oct 2006
PDF
May 2005 - Apr 2006
PDF
Nov 2004 - Oct 2005
PDF
May 2004 - Apr 2005
PDF
Nov 2003 - Oct 2004
PDF
May 2003 - Apr 2004
PDF
Nov 2002 - Oct 2003
PDF
May 2002 - Apr 2003
PDF
Nov 2001 - Oct 2002
PDF
May 2001 - Apr 2002
PDF
Nov 2000 - Oct 2001
PDF
May 2000 - Apr 2001
PDF
Nov 1999 - Oct 2000
PDF
May 1999 - Apr 2000
PDF
Nov 1998 - Oct 1999
PDF
May 1998 - Apr 1999
PDF
Nov 1997 - Oct 1998
Text
May 1997 - Apr 1998
Text
Nov 1996 - Oct 1997
Text
May 1996 - Apr 1997
Text
Nov 1995 - Oct 1996
Text
May 1995 - Apr 1996
Text
 
 
September 25, 2017**
# Official Journal L 246/15 S

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 246 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5115 September 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 246

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5115 September 2008

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances
   (1) | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

DIRECTIVES

*

Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances
   (1)

1

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Note to the reader (see page 3 of the cover) | s3 |

*

Note to the reader (see page 3 of the cover)

s3

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 49842.

#### Protest 103664-K of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The claim was found to be supported by uncon-tradicted evidence and it was also shown that the articles are similar to those involved in Abstract 43372, which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith, the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2123/2005

of 22 December 2005         

amending Regulation (EC) No 1555/96 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on pears, lemons, apples and courgettes

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 33(4) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1555/96 is hereby replaced by the Annex hereto.

Article 2

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

It shall apply from 1 January 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 22 December 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 47/2003 (OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 64).

(2)OJ L 193, 3.8.1996, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1796/2005 (OJ L 288, 29.10.2005, p. 42).

(3)OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 883/2005 (OJ L 148, 11.6.2005, p. 5).

(4)OJ L 336, 23.12.1994, p. 22.

----

ANNEX

                     ‘ANNEX

Without prejudice to the rules governing the interpretation of the combined nomenclature, the description of the products is deemed to be indicative only. The scope of the additional duties for the purposes of this Annex is determined by the scope of the CN codes as they exist at the time of the adoption of this Regulation. Where “ex” appears before the CN code, the scope of the additional duties is determined both by the scope of the CN code and by the corresponding trigger period.

----
Commodity 2006 Pounds 

Applied

2007 Pounds 

Applied

2008 Pounds 

Applied

COTTON, GENERAL 4590.98 3399.08 1844.00

Grand Total 4590.98 3399.08 1844.00

Pyrithiobac (078905) Cal. DPR Usage Data 

Publicly available data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation 

(CADPR) was used to produce the following table outlining the pounds of 

Limonene used in California over the three most recent years available (2005 

- 2008). 

Date Prepared: December 28, 2010

Cal DPR Data: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm

Empty cells indicate no available usage.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 75 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7451]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-580-851]


Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of 
Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Nair at (202) 482-3813 or David 
Neubacher at (202) 482-5823; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 29, 2006, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on 
dynamic random access memory semiconductors from the Republic of Korea, 
covering the period January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. See 
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). On December 
11, 2006, the petitioner alleged that Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., 
received new subsidies.

Statutory Time Limits

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), requires the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') to 
issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 
days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which 
a review is requested and the final results of review within 120 days 
after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is 
not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines 
to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively.

Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results

    This administrative review is extraordinarily complicated due to 
the complexity of the countervailable subsidy practices found in the 
investigation and the new subsidy allegations. Because the Department 
requires additional time to review, analyze, and possibly verify the 
information, and to issue supplemental questionnaires, if necessary, it 
is not practicable to complete this review within the originally 
anticipated time limit (i.e., by May 3, 2007). Therefore, the 
Department is extending the time limit for completion of the 
preliminary results to not later than August 31, 2007, in accordance 
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 12, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-7451 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
Before the Second Division,

January 29, 1942

No. 46900.

#### Petition 6071-R of Marshall Field & Co. (Indianapolis).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The petition was dismissed.
Exhibit 15





November 10, 1999


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated November 10, 1999 on
our review of interim financial information of UniSource
Energy Corporation (the Company) and Tucson Electric Power
Company (TEP) as of and for the period ended September 30,
1999 and included in the Company's and TEP's quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is
incorporated by reference in the Company's Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-43765, 333-43767, 333-
43769, 333-53309, 333-53333 and 333-53337), on Form S-3
(No. 333-31043), and on Form S-4 (No. 333-60809), and in
Amendment No. 1 to TEP's Registration Statement on Form S-
4 (No. 333-64143).

Very truly yours,


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
## ELECTRONIC RECORD 

# W57-/*

COA # 01-12-01003-CR 

# OFFENSE: 10.01 (Habeas Corpus) STYLE: ExparteStanleyAnozie Obiv. COUNTY: Harris COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: Co Crim Ct at Law No 1 DATE: 09/25/2014 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 1805540A



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

## STYLE: Ex parte Stanley AnozieObi v. 

# AFPELLAHT^S Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: j2~//7/jyrf JUDGE: 

# Z fA4*C«— CCA#: 

# mviH CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
Exhibit 10.3


 


Form of Amendment No. 5 to James D. Small’s
Employment Agreement


 


This Amendment No. 5 (the “Amendment”),
dated as of April 7, 2022 (the “Effective Date”), is between International Seaways, Inc. (the “Company”)
and James D. Small (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, Overseas Shipholding
Group, Inc. (“OSG”) and the Executive previously entered into an employment agreement, dated February 13, 2015 and
as amended as of March 30, 2016, August 3, 2016, November 7, 2016 and April 2, 2020, which was assumed by the Company (the “Employment
Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS, the Employment
Agreement was assigned to the Company on November 30, 2016 in connection with the spin-off of the Company from OSG (the “Assignment”).


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to
Section 13(g) of the Employment Agreement, following the Assignment, references to “the Company” in the Employment Agreement
constitute a reference to the Company (rather than to OSG).


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement in accordance with Section 13(c) thereof.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the premises and mutual covenants herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:


 


		1.	Section 3(a) is hereby amended by replacing “$485,000” with “$500,500”.



 


		2.	Except as provided herein, the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall be
binding on the Company in the same manner and to the same extent as on OSG if no assignment to the Company had taken place.



 


		3.	This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but
all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.



 


[Signature Page Follows]


 









     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
have executed this Amendment to the Employment Agreement as of the date first written above.


 


	 	James D. Small III
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	International Seaways, Inc.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	Name:
	 	 
	 	 
	 	Title:
* 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

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10835

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELIAS ARTEMIO MEDINA-SALINAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-26-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Elias Artemio Medina-Salinas appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Medina-Salinas contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Medina-Salinas maintains that he
No. 03-10835

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Medina-Salinas acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
# Official Journal C 170/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 170 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6217 May 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 170

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6217 May 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 170/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 170/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Before the First Division,

November 14, 1950

No. 54844.

#### Continental Stones Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 150323-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2024

- 0591

_____________________________
H. M.
, Mother of W.G.M., D.R.L.M., L.B.M., Minor Children
, Appellant,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN AND F AMILIES , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Holmes County

. Russell S. Roberts , Judge

.

August 26, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R OBERTS , and T ANENBAUM , JJ.
, concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

H.M., pro se
, Appellant.
Andrew McGinley, Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee; Casey Tidwell Barron, Children’s Legal Services, Marianna; Sarah J. Rumph, Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee; Caitlin E. Burke and Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Guardian ad Litem Program, Tallahassee; Eric Christopher Love, Guardian ad Litem P rogram, Marianna
, for Appellee.