alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM R. HOFMILLER, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

12 USCMA 479, 31 CMR 65

*480No. 15,398

October 20, 1961

*Commander Leo F. O’Brien,*USN, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain James W. Grant,*USN, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

The accused stands convicted of failure to obey a lawful order restricting him to his battery area, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92, 10 USC § 892. Intermediate appellate authorities have apparently and erroneously considered that the maximum punishment governing this offense is that for a violation of Code, supra, Article 92, rather than that prescribed for breach of restriction. See United States v Hammock, 8 USCMA 245, 24 CMR 55, and footnote 5, paragraph 127c, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951. Moreover, examination of the respective actions of the convening authority and the supervisory authority indicates that the latter may have extended the period of suspension of that portion of accused’s sentence relating to bad-conduct discharge beyond that prescribed in the former’s action. See United States v DeVore, 10 USCMA 375, 27 CMR 449.

The petition for review is granted and the decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The sentence shall be reassessed by the board of review. It will also take action to insure that the period of suspension of accused’s sentence to bad-conduct discharge does not extend beyond completion of appellate review in this case or his release from confinement, whichever is the later date, unless such suspension is sooner vacated.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

    CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
          RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

         I, Robert J. Chaney, Chief Executive Officer, and I, John C. Barney,
Chief Financial Officer, of UGI Utilities, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certify that:

         (1)      The Company's periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period
                  ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with
                  the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
                  Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

                                      * * *

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                                 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

/s/ Robert J. Chaney                                    /s/ John C. Barney
------------------------------                          ------------------------
Robert J. Chaney                                        John C. Barney

Date: February 13, 2004                                 Date: February 13, 2004

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
         been provided to UGI Utilities, Inc. and will be retained by UGI
         Utilities, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
         or its staff upon request.
#### The State *versus*Savage & *al.*

An indictment, alleging the breaking and entering *into*and stealing *within,*“ a building,” (without stating that it was a building in which goods, merchandize or any valuable thing was kept for use, sale or deposit,) charges, not a compound, but a simple larceny.

Exceptions from the District Court, Rice, J.

Indictment, charging that defendants, Dec. 1, 1850, ‘-'the *584wooden building of one Harrison Jaquith, in the night time, did break and enter, and five bushels of wheat, &c. of the goods and chattels of the said Harrison Jaquith, then and there in the building aforesaid being found, feloniously did steal, take and carry away in the shop aforesaid.”

The verdict was against the defendants. They then moved in arrest of judgment, because the indictment does not allege that the wooden building was “ a building in which goods, merchandize or any valuable thing was kept for use, sale or deposit. The motion was overruled. The defendants filed exceptions to many of the rulings given at the trial, and also to the overruling of the motion.

*Lancaster & Baker,*for the defendants.

*Vose,*County Attorney, for the State.

Tenney, J.,

orally.—For reasons given in the case, *State*v. *Wing,*ante, page 581, the exceptions to the rulings at the trial do not come up for consideration. The only question, then, arises upon the motion in arrest of judgment.

It is said the grand jury intended to indict for a compound larceny, under the statute, chap. 156, sect. *2,*which provides against the breaking and entering into, and stealing within any building, in which goods, merchandize or any valuable thing is kept for use, sale or deposit; and that, while the proof shows the building to have contained the goods, the indictment is defective in not setting forth that it was a building of that description.

The statute intended to throw around buildings, usually occupied for holding goods, a stronger protection than was deemed necessary for some other classes of buildings. But it does not appear that this building was designed and kept for such a purpose. It might have been a mere shed, into which the articles were placed for a night, to avoid exposure to the weailer.

The indictment therefore does not sufficiently charge a compound larceny. It does however sufficiently charge a simple larceny, and the motion in arrest must be overruled.
EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>
                                         SIERRA MONITOR CORPORATION
                         
                                     NET EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONS
                         
                                                 (unaudited)
      

<CAPTION>
                                                       (All amounts in thousands except per share data)
                                            
                                                      Three Months Ended                 Nine Months Ended
                                               September 30,      September 30,    September 30,    September 30,
                                                   1997                1996             1997             1996
                                              -------------       -------------    -------------        --------
<S>                                            <C>                <C>                     <C>           <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding

          Common Stock                               10,556              10,332           10,436          10,311
                                                                                                     
          Common Stock equivalents -                                                                 
                                                                                                     
                options                                 190                 378              285             379
                                              -------------       -------------     ------------        --------
                                                                                                     
          Total weighted average shares                                                              
                                                                                                     
                outstanding                          10,746              10,710           10,722          10,690
                                              =============       =============     ============        ========
                                                                                                     
Net income                                    $       188.1       $        80.6           $158.4        $  100.5
                                              =============       =============     ============        ========
                                                                                                     
Net income per share                          $        0.02       $        0.01           $ 0.01        $   0.01
                                              =============       =============     ============        ========
</TABLE>
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

ReferenceisherebymadetothatcertainTrustandServicingAgreementdatedas of February 6,2016, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor,WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATEADVISORS,LLC,asSpecialServicer,WILMINGTONTRUST,NATIONALASSOCIATION, asTrustee and CITIBANK, N.A., as Certificate Administrator with respect toCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-225L (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section13.7 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of theServicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the“Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during suchperiod has been made under my supervision,and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based onsuch review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February2018.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive VicePresident 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
# C_2015198EN.01002102.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 March 2015 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën; other party: Customs Support Holland BV

(Case C-144/15)

(2015/C 198/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Appellant:

Other party: Customs Support Holland BV

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Must heading 2304 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) be interpreted as meaning that that tariff heading also covers a soya protein concentrate obtained following the removal of residual fats, carbohydrates (or food fibres) and harmful substances from solid residues (so-called soya meal) resulting from the extraction of oil from soya beans, which, by means of that removal, has been made suitable for use as an ingredient in compound feeds for very young calves? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Must heading 2304 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) be interpreted as meaning that that tariff heading also covers a soya protein concentrate obtained following the removal of residual fats, carbohydrates (or food fibres) and harmful substances from solid residues (so-called soya meal) resulting from the extraction of oil from soya beans, which, by means of that removal, has been made suitable for use as an ingredient in compound feeds for very young calves?

| 2) | If Question 1 is answered in the negative, is CN heading 2308 or CN heading 2309 then applicable to a soya protein concentrate obtained in the manner described in Question 1? |
| --- | --- |

2)

If Question 1 is answered in the negative, is CN heading 2308 or CN heading 2309 then applicable to a soya protein concentrate obtained in the manner described in Question 1?

---
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for JPMCC Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2016-JP2 CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2016-JP2

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of July 1, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

  

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
(logo)**Grant Thornton**

 

 

**GrantThornton LLP**

201 S College Street, 

Suite 2500

Charlotte,NC 28244-0100

 

T704.632.3500

F704.334.7701

www.GrantThornton.com

 

 

**REPORTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

Boardof Directors

TrimontReal Estate Advisors, LLC:

 

 

Wehaveexaminedmanagement’sassertion,includedintheaccompanyingManagement’sReporton Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria(“Management’s Report”), that **Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLC**(the“Company” or “Trimont”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for theCompany’s Special Servicing Platform (the “Platform”) as ofandfortheyearendedDecember31,2017,excludingcriteria1122(d)(1)(iii)and1122(d)(4)(xv)which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed bythe Company with respect to the Platform. The Platform consists of asset-backedtransactions and securities for which the Company acted as special servicer andas defined by management in Exhibit B of Management’s Report. Management isresponsible for the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertionabout the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for thePlatform based on ourexamination.

 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and in accordance withattestation standards establishedbytheAmericanInstituteofCertifiedPublicAccountants,and,accordingly,included examining, on a test basis,evidence about theCompany’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platformand performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backedtransactions and securities constituting the Platform and evaluating whetherthe Company performedservicingactivitiesrelatedtothosetransactionsandsecuritiesincompliancewiththeapplicable servicing criteria for the period covered by this report.Accordingly, our testing may not have included servicing activities related toeach asset-backed transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further,our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance that may haveoccurred prior to the period covered by this report and that may have affectedthe Company’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report. Webelievethatourexaminationprovidesareasonablebasisforouropinion.Ourexaminationdoes not providea legal determination onthe Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

 

Inour opinion, management’s assertion that Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLCcomplied with theaforementionedapplicableservicingcriteriaasofandfortheyearendedDecember31,2017for the Special Servicing Platform is fairly stated, in all materialrespects.

 

 

/s/Grant Thornton LLP

Charlotte,North Carolina 

February26, 2018

 

 

GrantThornton LLP

U.S.member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd
# C_2017006EN.01001901.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Patrice D’Oultremont and Others v Région wallonne

(Case C-290/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Directive 2001/42/EC - Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) - Definition of ‘plans and programmes’ - Conditions concerning the installation of wind turbines laid down by a regulatory order - Provisions concerning, inter alia, safety, inspection, site restoration and financial collateral and permitted noise levels set having regard to area use))

(2017/C 006/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Patrice D'Oultremont, Henri Tumelaire, François Boitte, Éoliennes à tout prix? ASBL

Applicant:

Defendant: Région wallonne

Defendant:

Intervening parties: Fédération de l’Énergie d’origine renouvelable et alternative ASBL (EDORA)

Intervening parties:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that a regulatory order, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, containing various provisions on the installation of wind turbines which must be complied with when administrative consent is granted for the installation and operation of such installations comes within the notion of ‘plans and programmes’, within the meaning of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

1

---
* The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1177

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Nancy E. Queen, also known as * [PUBLISHED] Nancy E. Hedrick, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 9, 2006 Filed: January 13, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Nancy E. Queen pleaded guilty to cons piracy to distr ibute ps eudoephedrine knowing it would be used to make methamphetamine. The district court * sentenced Queen to time served and three years of pr obation. Queen appealed, and we affirmed. United States v. Queen , No. 03-2796 (8 thCir. Mar. 25, 2004). In September 2004, Queen was ordered to report to a halfway house for substance abuse treatment. She-2- refused, and the Government moved to revoke her release. The district court found Queen had violated the conditions of he r release, revoked her probation, and on November 10, 2004, sentenced her to eleven months in prison. On appeal, Queen contends the district court lacked jurisdiction to sentence her because she had a § 2255 motion pending at the time of her November 2004 sentencing. Specifically, in October 2004, Queen filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging her conviction was unlawful becau se of violations of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, and because her appointed counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. The dist rict court denied the motion and her motions for a certificate of appealability. Queen appealed these rulings in a separate appeal filed in February 2005, three months after her revocation sentencing. Although a federal district court and a fe deral court of appeals should not assert jurisdiction over a case at the same time, a notice of appeal only divests the lower court of jurisdiction over aspects of the case that are the subject of the appeal. Hunter v. Underwood , 362 F.3d 468, 475 (8 thCir. 2004). District courts retain jurisdiction to enforce their orders when the same issu es are not simultaneously before the district court and appellate court. United States v. Phelps , 283 F.3d 1176, 1180-81 n.5 (9 th Cir. 2002); Doe 1-13 v. Bush , 261 F.3d 1037, 1064 (11 thCir. 2001). Here, there was no appellate action pendi ng at the time of the revocation and sentencing. Al though Queen had filed her § 2255 motion with the district court before the November 2004 revocation hearing, the motion was not the subject of any appellate litigation until January 2005 when Queen first sought a certificate of appealability. Even if there was an active appellate cause at the time of the November 2004 sentencing, the cause did not involve issu es related to Queen’s violations of the conditions of her probation. Thus, the distri ct court was not divested of jurisdiction with respect to Queen’s probation violations.-3- Accordingly, we affirm the district court, and dismiss as moot the Government’s motion to dismiss.

______________________________