alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(logo) C-III | C-III AssetManagement LLC 

 

 

**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 February 1, 2016, relating to the **Morgan Stanley Bank of AmericaMerrill Lynch Trust 2016-C28, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,Series 2016-C28** (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), hereby certifiesas 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 theundersigned’s supervision;

 

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

 

 

MSBAM 2016-C28
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 132842 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 132842 COA: 270472 Wayne CC: 81-172401 JEROME SWEEZER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 28, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
# C_2015171EN.01001701.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 February 2015 — Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-97/15)

(2015/C 171/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV

Applicant:

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the last paragraph of Note 5(C) to Chapter 84 of the CN — whether or not having regard to Attachments A and B to the Information Technology Agreement — be interpreted as meaning that apparatus such as the screenplays described in this judgment are to be classified as ‘hard disk drives’ in subheading 8471 70 50 of the CN, even though the apparatus has features and characteristics such that it is capable of reproducing on a television set or video monitor multimedia files stored on the hard disks, after converting those files into analogue signals? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the last paragraph of Note 5(C) to Chapter 84 of the CN — whether or not having regard to Attachments A and B to the Information Technology Agreement — be interpreted as meaning that apparatus such as the screenplays described in this judgment are to be classified as ‘hard disk drives’ in subheading 8471 70 50 of the CN, even though the apparatus has features and characteristics such that it is capable of reproducing on a television set or video monitor multimedia files stored on the hard disks, after converting those files into analogue signals?

| 2. | If question 1 must be answered in the negative, must heading 8521 of the CN then be interpreted as meaning that apparatus such as the screenplays can be classified under it, even though their video reproducing function is not their specific function, but is their principal function? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 must be answered in the negative, must heading 8521 of the CN then be interpreted as meaning that apparatus such as the screenplays can be classified under it, even though their video reproducing function is not their specific function, but is their principal function?

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30,
2000 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000, AND THE NOTES THERETO, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          71,326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,831
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,106
<INVENTORY>                                     90,489
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                       3,282,477
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,552,213
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,423,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        953,808
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       106,689
<OTHER-SE>                                     616,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,423,217
<SALES>                                        148,410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               485,915<F2>
<CGS>                                          124,531
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  312,907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                102,590
<INCOME-TAX>                                    38,720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             63,870
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    63,870
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1> THE COMPANY ISSUES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS UTILIZING A NON-CLASSIFIED BALANCE
SHEET.
<F2> THE COMPANY'S REVENUES ARE DERIVED PRIMARILY FROM RAILCAR LEASING.
<F3> THE COMPANY IS A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY.
</FN>


</TABLE>
No. 54841.

#### Air France *v.*United States,

protest 160005-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protest.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Toreador Resources Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that: the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

Dated: May 10, 2010/s/ CRAIG M. MCKENZIE Craig M. McKenzie President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: May 10, 2010/s/ MARC SENGÈS Marc Sengès Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being
filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
No. 46921.

#### Protests 71379-K, etc., of Mason Bros. & Tarlin et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Consumers Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jack I. Ehrenhaus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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


------------------------------------
Jack I. Ehrenhaus
Chief Executive Officer

March 22, 2007
(logo) DIXON HUGHES GOODMANLLP

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

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

Sole Member of C-III Asset ManagementLLC:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’sReport on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria,that C-III Asset Management LLC (the “Company”) complied with theservicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB for all transactions for which the Companyacted as servicer involving first lien commercial mortgage loans (the“Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016,excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(1) –1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix) and1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to theactivities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management isresponsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards established by the American Instituteof Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on atest basis, evidence supporting management’s assertion and performingsuch other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Webelieve that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 isfairly stated, in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP

 

Asheville, North Carolina

February 6, 2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10525

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAZIEL MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-147-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raziel Martinez pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the distribution of

a controlled substance and was sentenced to 71 months of imprisonment and

three years of supervised release.

Martinez argues on appeal that the district court committed clear error

when it held him accountable at sentencing both for four ounces of heroin

observed by a confidential source lying on a table at a residence at which

Martinez was selling heroin on May 22, 2007, and for five ounces of heroin

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 30, 2011

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: 10-10525 Document: 00511527129 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2011
No. 10-10525

contained in five separate one-ounce packets wrapped in black tape that were

recovered from Martinez two days later on May 24, 2007. He contends that the

four ounces of heroin observed on May 22, 2007, was the same heroin that was

included in the five ounces of heroin recovered from Martinez on May 24, 2007,

and that the Government did not meet its burden of proving that such a

guidelines adjustment based on drug quantity was applicable. Additionally, the

Government moves to strike its assertion in its brief that Martinez had a second

source of supply in Fort Worth, Texas, and any arguments relying on that

assertion.

The district court was entitled to consider such evidence, and aside from

his own speculation, Martinez has not offered in rebuttal any evidence

demonstrating that the two quantities of heroin were identical. See United

States v. Rose, 449 F.3d 627, 633 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Betancourt,

422 F.3d 240, 246-47 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Martinez has not shown that

the district court’s drug quantity determination was not plausible in light of the

record as a whole, and thus he has not shown that the district court committed

clear error in calculating the drug quantity for which he was held accountable

at sentencing. See Betancourt, 422 F.3d at 246.

AFFIRMED; GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO STRIKE GRANTED.

2

Case: 10-10525 Document: 00511527129 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2011
Soil Surveys: New Concepts and Structure in Idaho 

By Bruce Knapp

Most Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) employees and partners are familiar with 

traditional soil surveys and may even have a good handle on using the information manually 

and/or electronically. However, many have yet to grasp why, with the once-over survey nearing 

completion, NRCS now plans to revise mapping to fit Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 

borders. 

The majority of once-over soil surveys were done according to arbitrary boundaries where 

funding was available. Contracts and agreements were signed and surveys were accomplished 

using the technical concepts available—but at varying times and at different levels of intensity. 

The process worked well and was the only financially prudent way of getting the once-over 

completed. However, soils’ natural delineations are not defined by such boundaries. 

MLRAs are delineations of areas with similar landforms, climate, vegetative characteristics and 

land uses. There is a great base of information to start from using the once-over soil surveys; 

still, there is a need for maps that tie together soils within their natural landscapes. 

 

Nationwide, the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) is completing an analysis of the staff 

years needed to maintain or update each 

soil survey using MLRA concepts. 

Anticipated improvements include 

increased accuracy of soil interpretations 

for users and USDA programs. They also 

include consistency in mapping for 

planning, Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP) rental rates, and land value 

assessments, among others. 

 

The map (right) shows the current soil 

survey office structure within Idaho. This 

new structure is being implemented 

throughout the nation. 

There are three MLRA Management Area 

(MMA) offices in Idaho. They are located 

in Idaho Falls, Meridian and Moscow. 

These offices manage and update soil 
surveys in six of the twelve Idaho MLRA areas. The other six MLRAs are managed by offices 

in adjacent states. The new structure offers soil scientists a permanent duty station. In addition, 

it allows NRCS to efficiently bring the once-over soil surveys up to MLRA mapping standards. 

 

Once information is updated, it will be available on the Soil Data Mart and the Web Soil Survey 

at websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. 

For additional information on MLRA soil surveys, contact Dave Hoover, 208-378-5790 or Bruce 

Knapp, 208-882-4960, Ext. 117.
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0290 Post-Focus Draft Revision 2 6/15/2011 ENGINEER: Arnold \ JD PV (kg/yr): SUBMITTER: USE:

OTHER USES:

MSDS: No Label: No TLV/PEL:

CRSS : Chemical Name: S-H20: 0.000001 g/L @ VP: 1.0E-6 torr @ MW: %<500 %<1000 Physical State and Misc CRSS Info:p110290.en2.txt

Consumer Use: SAT (concerns) (04/26/2011): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Migration to groundwater: negl - rapid PBT rating: P3B3T1 . Health: 1 Eco: 1 No releases to Water OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: NR NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: P2 Claim:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0290 Number of Sites/ Location: Days/yr: Basis:

Process Description:p110290.en2.txt

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. |

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis: Inhalation:
Dermal:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0290 Number of Sites/ Location: Days/yr: Basis: Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.p110290.en2.txt Output 2: kg/site-day over days/yr from site to: from: basis: RELEASE TOTAL kg/yr - all sites OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis: Inhalation:
Dermal:
Case No. 13,932.

#### The THOMAS TURRALL.

[6 Ben. 404.] 1

District Court, E. D. New York.

March, 1873.

Half Pilotage — Tendee.

1. A Hell Gate pilot, on board of a vessel, claimed to have tendered his services as a pilot to a brig, which he was passing. He alleged that his services were refused, and filed a libel to recover half pilotage. His evidence of the refusal was contradicted by two witnesses from the brig: *Held,*that, as there were other witnesses to the alleged refusal, who were not called, nor their absence accounted for, the libellant was not entitled to a decree on such a state of the proofs.

2. Whether such a tender of services by a pilot is sufficient to entitle him to half pilotage, quaere.

In admiralty.

F. A. Wilcox, for libellant.

Beebe, DoDohue & Cooke, for claimant.

BENEDICT, District Judge.

This case presents a question of fact, upon which the li-bellant’s right to recover depends, and that is whether the libellant’s tender of his services as a Hell Gate pilot for the brig Thomas Turrall, was refused by the master of that brig.

The refusal being denied, it was incumbent upon the pilot to substantiate his claim by a preponderance of evidence, but the case has been presented to me upon the testimony of the pilot alone, as opposed to the testimony of two witnesses from the brig. It appears that there were other witnesses to the alleged tender and refusal, but they are not called, nor their absence accounted for.

Upon such a state of the proofs, the libel-lants cannot have a decree, and the more because the alleged tender of service is conceded to have been made by the pilot while he was on board another vessel, at the time passing the brig here proceeded against. Words exchanged between persons so situated might well be misunderstood, and a tender and refusal made under such circumstances, if relied upon, should be fully proved.

I must therefore dismiss the libel for want of preponderating proof of the averments it contains, and it becomes unnecessary to determine the question, whether a tender by a pilot of services, sufficient to afford foundation for a charge of half pilotage, within the meaning of the law, can be made without an actual presence at the side of the vessel sought to be piloted, with the intention and present ability at once to enter upon the service if accepted. Let the libel be dismissed, and with costs.