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

DIXON HUGHES GOODMAN LLP

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Managers of C-III Capital Partners LLC, the 

Sole Member of C-III Asset Management LLC:

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that C-III Asset Management LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for all transactions for which the Company acted as servicerinvolving first lien commercial mortgage loans (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(i) – 1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standardsestablished by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the servicingcriteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report, and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to eachasset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe thatour examination provides a reasonable basisfor our opinion.Our examination does not providea legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company compliedwith the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 is fairly stated, in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP

Asheville, North Carolina 

March 1, 2016
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 3

- 30415 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
WALTER O’SHEA CURRY, also known as Shay , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:09

- CR

- 279

- 5

Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Walter O’Shea Curry has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Curry h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 17, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-30415 Document: 00512473740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013N o. 1 3

- 30415

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-30415 Document: 00512473740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
# Official Journal C 166/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 166 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6314 May 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 166

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6314 May 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 166/01 | Euro exchange rates — 13 May 2020 | 1 |
| 2020/C 166/02 | New national side of euro coins intended for circulation | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 166/01

Euro exchange rates — 13 May 2020

1

2020/C 166/02

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training |
| 2020/C 166/03 | Grant award notice Call for proposals – ref: GP/DSI/ReferNet_FPA/001/19 ReferNet – Cedefop’s European Network of Expertise on Vocational Education and Training (VET) | 3 |
| 2020/C 166/04 | Grant award notice Call for proposals – ref: GP/DSI/ReferNet_FPA/001/20 ReferNet – Cedefop’s European Network of Expertise on Vocational Education and Training (VET) | 7 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 166/05 | Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Turkey | 9 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 166/06 | Publication of the amended single document following approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 | 20 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

2020/C 166/03

Grant award notice Call for proposals – ref: GP/DSI/ReferNet_FPA/001/19 ReferNet – Cedefop’s European Network of Expertise on Vocational Education and Training (VET)

3

2020/C 166/04

Grant award notice Call for proposals – ref: GP/DSI/ReferNet_FPA/001/20 ReferNet – Cedefop’s European Network of Expertise on Vocational Education and Training (VET)

7

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2020/C 166/05

Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Turkey

9

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2020/C 166/06

Publication of the amended single document following approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

20

---

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

EN
# C_2016305EN.01000802.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Franz Lesar v Beim Vorstand der Telekom Austria AG eingerichtetes Personalamt

(Case C-159/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and Article 2(2)(a) - Article 6(2) - Age discrimination - Determination of pension rights of former civil servants - Periods of apprenticeship and of work - Failure to take into account such periods completed before the age of 18))

(2016/C 305/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Franz Lesar

Applicant:

Defendant: Beim Vorstand der Telekom Austria AG eingerichtetes Personalamt

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1), 2(2)(a) and 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the taking into account of periods of apprenticeship and of employment completed by a civil servant before reaching the age of 18 for the purpose of granting a pension entitlement and the calculation of the amount of his retirement pension, in so far as that legislation seeks to guarantee, within a civil service retirement scheme, a uniform age for admission to that scheme and a uniform age for entitlement to the retirement benefits provided under that scheme.

---

(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.

1

---
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**956 KA 13-02023** 
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GREGORY L. RUSSELL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (DEBORAH K. JESSEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. SMALL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah A. Haendiges, J.), rendered November 4, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [2]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in issuing an order of protection in favor of two witnesses ( see CPL 530.13 [4] [a]), i.e., the mother of defendant’s children and their daughter. As a preliminary matter, we agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal does not preclude us from considering his contention inasmuch as the order of protection was “not a part of the plea agreement” ( People v Lilley , 81 AD3d 1448, 1448, lv denied 17 NY3d 860), and is not a part of his sentence ( see People v Nieves , 2 NY3d 310, 316; People v Tate , 83 AD3d 1467, 1467). We note, however, that defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review by not objecting at sentencing to the issuance of the order of protection in favor of those two witnesses ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; Nieves , 2 NY3d at 315-317; People v Collins , 117 AD3d 1535, 1535; People v Loffler , 111 AD3d 1059, 1060-1061; People v Sweeney , 106 AD3d 841, 842). In any event, we conclude that the contention lacks merit ( see CPL 530.13 [4] [a]; People v Wilson , 115 AD3d 1229, 1229, lv denied 23 NY3d 969).

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10866

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SANTIAGO VALDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-65-2

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Santiago Valdez appeals from the 360-month sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams of

cocaine. He argues that his sentence, which was enhanced pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.1 based on Valdez’s status as a career offender, violates the Eighth

Amendment because it was cruel and unusual punishment, disproportionate to

his offense, and essentially amounted to a life sentence based on his age. Valdez

has not shown that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime. He

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 31, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-10866 Document: 00511939826 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/31/2012
No. 11-10866

committed the instant offense after two prior felony convictions; was sentenced

as a recidivist; was held responsible in the instant case for heroin, cocaine, and

cocaine base equivalent to 8,517.57 kilograms of marijuana; and has failed to set

forth any cogent argument regarding the disproportionality of his sentence. See

Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 284-85 (1980). 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-10866 Document: 00511939826 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/31/2012
# C_2015311EN.01001403.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/14

---

Appeal brought on 20 March 2015 by Mohammad Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2015 in Case T-509/11 Makhlouf v Council

(Case C-136/15 P)

(2015/C 311/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Mohammad Makhlouf (represented by: G. Karouni, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | state that the decisions and regulations of the Council of the European Union which are at issue in the present action are null and void in so far as they concern the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

state that the decisions and regulations of the Council of the European Union which are at issue in the present action are null and void in so far as they concern the appellant;

| — | order the Council to pay the appellant’s costs relating the present appeal and to the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the appellant’s costs relating the present appeal and to the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward a single plea in law alleging an error of law by the General Court in the application of the rules relating to the obligation imposed on the Council.

More specifically, the appellant alleges that the General Court relied on the Council’s reasoning which is incomplete and unsubstantiated, which prevented him from identifying the actual and specific reasons for his listing. As a consequence, the appellant was not in a position to ensure an adequate defence, since he was unaware of the acts which were alleged against him concerning the repression of demonstrators, or the provision of support to the regime, or benefiting from the regime.

In addition, the General Court manifestly misstated its obligation to provide reasons by trying to mitigate the Council’s failure to act, by relying, wrongly and for the first time in its judgment, on the fact that the appellant ‘benefits from ... the ...regime’.

The fact that the Council’s statement of reasons did not set out clearly and explicitly the acts with which he is charged and which gave rise to the restrictive measure, seriously prejudiced the exercise of the appellant’s rights of defence.

---
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 516 

Recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and 

expressing the sense of the Senate that history should be regarded 

as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of 

the future. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 19, 2006 

Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. FRIST, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. REID, and Mr. 

BROWNBACK) submitted the following resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing the sense of the Senate 

that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future. 

Whereas news of the end of slavery did not reach frontier 

areas of the United States, and in particular the Southwestern States, for more than 2 years after President 

Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 

1863, and months after the conclusion of the Civil War; 

Whereas on June 19, 1865, Union soldiers led by Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, with 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 516 ATS 

news that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved 

were free; 

Whereas African Americans who had been slaves in the 

Southwest celebrated June 19, commonly known as 

‘‘Juneteenth Independence Day’’, as the anniversary of 

their emancipation; 

Whereas African Americans from the Southwest continue the 

tradition of Juneteenth Independence Day as inspiration 

and encouragement for future generations; 

Whereas, for more than 135 years, Juneteenth Independence 

Day celebrations have been held to honor African American freedom while encouraging self-development and respect for all cultures; 

Whereas, although Juneteenth Independence Day is beginning to be recognized as a national, and even global, 

event, the history behind the celebration should not be 

forgotten; and 

Whereas the faith and strength of character demonstrated by 

former slaves remains an example for all people of the 

United States, regardless of background, religion, or 

race: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) the Senate— 

3 (A) recognizes the historical significance of 

4 Juneteenth Independence Day to the Nation; 

5 (B) supports the continued celebration of 

6 Juneteenth Independence Day to provide an op7 portunity for the people of the United States to 

8 learn more about the past and to understand 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 516 ATS 

1 better the experiences that have shaped the Na2 tion; and 

3 (C) encourages the people of the United 

4 States to observe Juneteenth Independence Day 

5 with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and pro6 grams; and 

7 (2) it is the sense of the Senate that— 

8 (A) history should be regarded as a means 

9 for understanding the past and solving the chal10 lenges of the future; and 

11 (B) the celebration of the end of slavery is 

12 an important and enriching part of the history 

13 and heritage of the United States. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 9789)

#### The American International Products Corporation *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 916825; 715923.

(Decided September 29, 1960)

*John D. Bode,*for tbe plaintiff.

*George Ooehran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for tbe plaintiff and tbe Assistant Attorney General for tbe United States, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, tbat tbe merebandise tbe subject of tbe above entitled appeals to reappraisement is properly dutiable on tbe basis of American Selling Price as defined in Section 402(g) Tariff Act of 1930 as amended and tbat tbe said American Selling Price was as follows for tbe export periods indicated.

> Item Period Price

> PAS Sodium 1959 $1.75 per lb. less

> 1% net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED tbat tbe appeals be deemed submitted for decision on tbis stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended *494by section 8 of tibe Customs Administrative Act of 1988, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question, and that such value for the involved item at the time of exportation heretofore indicated was as hereinabove set forth in the stipulation of submission herein.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of UAL CORPORATION
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

Each
undersigned officer certifies that to the best of his knowledge based on a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008
of UAL Corporation (the "Report"):



Date: July 23, 2008/s/GLENN F. TILTONGlenn F. Tilton
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer/s/FREDERIC F. BRACEFrederic F. Brace
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America 

-vsRafael Rodriguez

________________________________ 

Case No. 2:13-cr-051 (1) 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY 

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 

11, F.R.Cr.P. and has entered a plea of guilty to Count one (1) of the 

Information. After examining the Defendant under oath concerning each of 

the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determine that the defendant is 

competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that the guilty plea 

is knowingly and voluntary made and that the offenses charged are supported 

by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements 

of such offense. 

 The plea agreement contains an agreed sentence and it is up to 

the District Judge to determine if the sentence is appropriate. If the 

District Judge does so determine, I RECOMMEND the plea agreement and the 

plea of guilty should be accepted and the Defendant should be adjudged 

guilty and sentenced accordingly. Otherwise, the plea agreement should 

be rejected and the defendant should be allowed to withdraw the guilty plea. 

The Defendant remains in the custody of the U.S. Marshal pending sentencing. 

 

Date: April 3, 2013 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation 

within fourteen (14) days from the date of its service shall bar an aggrieved 

party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned 

United States District Judge. 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B). 

Case: 2:13-cr-00051-ALM Doc #: 17 Filed: 04/03/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>