alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

ReferenceisherebymadetothatcertainPoolingandServicingAgreementdatedasof July 1, 2016, by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage SecuritiesCorp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as MasterServicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisorand as Asset Representations Reviewer, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2016-JP2 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of thisAgreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision,and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary2018.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|
No. 44180.

#### Protests 732623-G, etc., of Bronston Green *&*Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314) the merchandise in question was held dutiable at 33 cents per pound and 45 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1115 (a) as claimed.
# C_2019082EN.01003401.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

(Case T-165/15) (1)

((State aid - Agreements between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard))

(2019/C 82/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1227 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.22614 (C 53/07) implemented by France in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn, Ryanair, Airport Marketing Services and Transavia (OJ 2015 L 201, p. 109).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

---
# C_2015311EN.01002401.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 26 June 2015 — Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl v Comune di Fossano

(Case C-318/15)

(2015/C 311/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Comune di Fossano

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the principles of freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services, equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality be interpreted as precluding legislative provisions such as those currently in force in Italy, namely Articles 122(9) and 253(20-bis) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006, concerning the automatic exclusion of abnormally low tenders in procedures for the award of works contracts with a value below the threshold which may be of cross-border interest?

---
#### J. Warner Prins (Freedman & Slater, Inc.) *v.*United States

No. 6739.

Entry No. 709752.

Invoice dated London, England, July 1945.

Certified July 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 7, 1945.

(Decided January 10, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

This appeal for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concerns the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

An agreed set of facts shows export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 Id)), to/be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
#### Pike *versus*John E. McDonald *& al.*

A judgment is a debt of a higher order, than was the contract upon which it is founded.

A discharge in bankruptcy does not bar a *judgment,*recovered *after*the defendant’s application to be decreed a bankrupt, although it • be founded upon a note, which *might have*been proved in bankruptcy.

Assumpsit, for money paid.

In June, 1843, one Pease recovered judgment against the parties to this suit, upon a note in which this plaintiff was surety for these defendants. In 1846, J. E. McDonald obtained a discharge, under the Bankrupt law of the United States, upon his own petition, filed after said note became payable. In 1848, this plaintiff paid said' judgment, and now brings this suit to recover for the money so paid.

The case was submitted to the court for a legal disposition, by nonsuit or default.

*Shepley*and *Dana,*for the plaintiff.

*Swasey,*for the defendants.

The bankruptcy of McDonald, the defendant, who was one of the principals in the note, fully discharged him from all legal liability upon that note. If the surety paid the note after such discharge of the principal, there then existed nothing more than a *moral obligation,*that the principal should remunerate him. This moral obligation, without an express promise, cannot be enforced at law.

A liability on the part of the principal pre-supposes that there tvas a debt against him, which the surety has paid. But, in this case, there was no debt of the principal. There had been one, but the bankruptcy had discharged it. A payment by the surety, *after*such discharge, raises no promise in law.

But, if the surety had a claim for reimbursement, it was *provable*in bankruptcy. Bankrupt Act, § 5. And by the Act, § 4, such claims, if not so proved, are expressly barred.

Shepley, C. J.

It appears by the agreed statement, that *419Simeon Pease recovered judgment against the plaintiff and defendants in June, 1843, founded upon a promissory note made by them on October 1, 1839, on which the plaintiff was surety for the defendants.

Note.—Howard, J. having been of counsel to one of the parties, did. not act in the decision of this case.

One of the defendants, John E. McDonald, filed his petition to be declared a bankrupt on February 22, 1843, and such proceedings were had thereon, that he obtained his discharge as a bankrupt on February *17,*1846.

The promissory note made to Pease might have been proved against John E. McDonald in bankruptcy, but instead of presenting his bankruptcy to prevent a recovery against him by Pease, he suffered that judgment to be recovered.

The promissory note" became merged in and extinguished by the judgment, which became a new debt accruing since the petition in bankruptcy was filed, and not provable in bankruptcy, as decided in the case of *Holbrook*v. *Foss, 27*Maine, 441.

That judgment being a debt, which the defendant, John E. McDonald, was legally bound to pay, has been satisfied by the plaintiff, as surety for the defendants, and he is therefore entitled to recover a judgment against John E. McDonald as well as against the other defendant.

*Defendants defaulted.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Company's Balance Sheet as of September 30, 1998 and the Statement Of Income
for the year ended September 30, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial staements.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          84,124
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0    
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,366,188
<PP&E>                                       7,995,908
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,878,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,496,673<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          275,360<F2>
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,425,503        
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,496,673<F3>
<SALES>                                      3,083,932<F4>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,083,932
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               279,078<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             199,421
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,605,433
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,605,433
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,605,433
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 3,618.66<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 3,618.66<F6>
<FN>
<F1>Includes unamortized mortgage refinancing costs           
<F2>Accrued interest on mortgage and first mortgage principal payment due 
    within one year and accrued supervisory services 
<F3>Includes long-term debt 
<F4>Rental income includes basic rent, advance of primary overage rent
    and secondary overage rent
<F5>Supervisory services and amortization of mortgage refinance costs 
<F6>Earnings per $5,000 participation unit, based on 720 participation units
    outstanding during the period
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 615 

Designating November 26, 2006, as ‘‘Drive Safer Sunday’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2006 

Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself and Mr. ISAKSON) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating November 26, 2006, as ‘‘Drive Safer Sunday’’. 

Whereas motor vehicle travel is the primary means of transportation in the United States; 

Whereas everyone on the roads and highways needs to drive 

more safely to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from 

motor vehicle accidents; 

Whereas the death of almost 43,000 people a year in more 

than 6 million highway crashes in the United States has 

been called an epidemic by Transportation Secretary 

Norman Mineta; 

Whereas according to the National Highway Transportation 

Safety Administration, wearing a seat belt saved 15,434 

lives in 2004 and 15,632 lives in 2005; and 

Whereas the Sunday after Thanksgiving is the busiest highway traffic day of the year: Now, therefore, be it 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 615 IS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) encourages— 

3 (A) high schools, colleges, universities, ad4 ministrators, teachers, primary schools, and 

5 secondary schools to launch campus-wide edu6 cational campaigns to urge students to be care7 ful about safety when driving; 

8 (B) national trucking firms to alert their 

9 drivers to be especially focused on driving safely 

10 during the heaviest traffic day of the year, and 

11 to publicize the importance of the day using 

12 Citizen’s band (CB) radios and in truck stops 

13 across the Nation; 

14 (C) clergy to remind their members to 

15 travel safely when attending services and gath16 erings; 

17 (D) law enforcement personnel to remind 

18 drivers and passengers to drive particularly 

19 safely on the Sunday after Thanksgiving; and 

20 (E) everyone to use the Sunday after 

21 Thanksgiving as an opportunity to educate 

22 themselves about highway safety; and 

23 (2) designates November 26, 2006, as ‘‘Drive 

24 Safer Sunday’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
# C_2015328EN.01003602.xml

| 5.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/36

---

Action brought on 29 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-110/15)

(2015/C 328/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application seeking annulment of the proposal to transfer the applicant’s pension rights into the EU pension scheme, which applies the new general provisions implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and an order for the defendant to pay a provisional sum of one euro against the damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | declare that Article 9 of the general provisions of 15 July 2011 implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Article 9 of the general provisions of 15 July 2011 implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful;

| — | annul the decision of 10 March 2015 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those rights into the pension scheme of the EU institutions, pursuant to the general provisions of 15 July 2011 implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 10 March 2015 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those rights into the pension scheme of the EU institutions, pursuant to the general provisions of 15 July 2011 implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | in the alternative, order the European Commission to pay a provisional sum of one euro against the damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order the European Commission to pay a provisional sum of one euro against the damage suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2016068EN.01004502.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/45

---

Action brought on 27 November 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-146/15)

(2016/C 068/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request that his appraisal reports drawn up since his promotion to grade AD 12 be converted to merit points.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the appointing authority’s decision of 8 April 2015 rejecting the applicant’s request that his appraisal reports drawn up since his promotion to grade AD 12 be converted to merit points; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority’s decision of 8 April 2015 rejecting the applicant’s request that his appraisal reports drawn up since his promotion to grade AD 12 be converted to merit points;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---
# C_2019035EN.01001801.xml

| 28.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-508/15) (1)

((EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure by Lithuania - Aid for early retirement - Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Concept of carrying out a commercial farming activity - Connection with the concept of semi-subsistence farming))

(2019/C 35/21)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, M. Palionis, T. Lozoraitis, R. Krasuckaitė and A. Petrauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39), in that that decision imposed on the Republic of Lithuania a flat-rate financial correction of 5 %, thereby excluding the sum of EUR 1 938 300,08 from financing under the ‘Early retirement’ measure during the period from 16 October 2010 to 15 October 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

---
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06149**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** 

### 06149\06149_ CERTIFICATION LETTER.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 06149\06149_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 06149\06149_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 

### 06149\06149_PART A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06149\06149_PART E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06149\06149_PART H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06149\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\06149_ Figure 1 Site Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06149\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\06149_ Item 5 - Process Flow Diagram (2).ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
**1358 CAF 14-01236**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MAKIA S.

--------------------------------------------- WYOMING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; CATHERINE S., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ALAN BIRNHOLZ, LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. WENDY S. SISSON, GENESEO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. PAMELA THIBODEAU, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, WILLIAMSVILLE.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, J.), entered June 18, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things, transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to petitioner. It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights and freeing her child for adoption. The mother refused to appear at the dispositional hearing and her attorney, although present, elected not to participate in the mother’s absence. Under those circumstances, we conclude that the mother’s refusal to appear constituted a default, and we therefore dismiss the appeal ( see Matter of Shawn A. [Milisa C.B.] , 85 AD3d 1598, 1598-1599, lv denied 17 NY3d 713).

Entered: December 23, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court