alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |                                                                                                          
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084, 8th Fl 401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2016, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, C-III ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and
Asset Representations Reviewer, CITIBANK, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-P3
(the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify
that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (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 2018.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
#### Brooks *versus*Briggs.

In trover for an article mortgaged to the plaintiff, the mortgage alone is evidence, *prima*facie, of property in him, as against a subsequent vendee of the mortgager.

If, in such an action, the defence be set up that the mortgage debt has been paid, the burden of proof is on the defendant.

Exceptions from the District Court, Cole, J.

Trover for a wagon.

One Blake, while owning the wagon, conveyed it in mortgage to the plaintiff, to secure the payment of a promissory note. Blake afterwards sold it to the defendant. This action is brought to recover its value.

To prove title, the plaintiff introduced the mortgage, which had been duly recorded; but offered no other evidence, neither was any offered by the defendant.

The defendant objected to a recovery by the plaintiff, unless he introduced the note, or furnished some further evidence of Blake’s indebtedness upon it. The Judge ruled, *448that, in this stage of the case, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to introduce further proof.

The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted.

*Bennett,*for the defendant.

It should have been required of the plaintiff to prove that the mortgage-note was unpaid. If unpaid, the'note is presumed to be in his hands. If paid, the mortgage is of no force. The *defendant*did not give the note, and has no means of proving what payments may have been made by his vendor. It is reasonable, therefore, that the plaintiff, having possession of all the proof, should be held to produce it.

The amount which the plaintiff is entitled to recover in .this action, if any thing, is the amount due upon the note. We wish to know, therefore, whether the note is unpaid, and if so, what indorsements are made upon it.

*N. Morrell,*for the plaintiff,

cited R. S. chap. 125, sect. 31 and 32; Phil. Ev. 89; 18 Maine, 357; Shep. Touch. 1820 ; 20 Maine, 408 ; 18 Pick. 394.

Howard, *J.,*

orally.—The production of the mortgage was evidence, *prima fade,*of property in the plaintiff.

If the defendant would rely upon,a payment of the mortgage debt, the burden of proof was on him. The instructions of the District Court were correct.

*Exceptions overruled.*
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

RENE MANTILLA , Appellant,

v.

RAUL HERNANDEZ FABIAN; MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY MENTAL

HEALTH CENTER, INC.; MANUEL SUAREZ; and MANUEL SUAREZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A. , Appellee s

.

No. 4D 18

- 2429

[ November 20, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach Cou nty ; Cymonie S. Rowe , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2014

- CA

010389

- XXXX

- MB

. Angelo Marino, Jr. and William H. Brennan, III of Angelo Marino, Jr., P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Thomas Regnier of Tom Regnier Appeals, P.A., Sunrise, for appellee Raul Hern andez Fabian.

P ER C URIAM

.

Rene Mantilla appeals an order granting summary judgment in favor of Raul Hernandez Fabian

. Mantilla and Fabian jointly owned a business, and Mantilla eventually sold his fifty percent interest to Fabian. Mantilla later sued F abian and other defendants alleging fraud in the inducement of the sale documents , among other claims

. T he trial court granted summary judgment based on a release executed at the time of the sale. We reverse.

“[O]ur supreme court has spoken clearly that no contract provision can preclude rescission on the basis of fraud in the inducement unless the contract provision explicitly states that fraud is not a ground for rescission.” Lower Fees, Inc. v. Bankrate, Inc ., 74 So. 3d 517, 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Oceanic Villas, Inc. v. Godson , 4 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 1941 ) ) . Because the release at issue does not “specifically and explicitly negate[] the right to bring” a fraudulent inducement claim, we reverse and2 rema nd for further proceedings. See id

. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings

.

C IKLIN , G ERBER and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Reap. Dec. 8981.

#### Frederick *H. Cone & Company, Inc.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiff.
August 23, 1940

No. 44230.

Suit 4293.

#### Shell *Eastern Petroleum Products, Inc., et al.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 189 affirmed. C. A. D. 138.
# C_2018142EN.01004102.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-402/15) (1)

1

((ERDF - Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project - Article 41(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Assessment of the contribution of a major project to the achievement of the objectives of the operational programme - Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Time limit exceeded))

(2018/C 142/53)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 3228 final of 11 May 2015, refusing to confirm to the Republic of Poland a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘European Shared Services Centre — Intelligent Logistics Systems’ in the context of Priority Axis 4 of operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

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

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

1

---
Form 20-F | Integrated Media Technology Limited  Exhibit 15.1       April
28, 2022   AUDIT ALLIANCE LLP
10 Anson Road, #20-16 International Plaza
Singapore 079903   Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm   We have issued our report dated April 28,2022 with respect to the consolidated financial statementsof Integrated Media Technology Limited and subsidiaries as of December 31,2021 and for the year ended December 31,2021, included in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,2021 which is incorporated by reference in this Registration Statement.  We consent to the incorporation by reference of the aforementioned report in this Registration Statement and to the use of our name as
it appears under the caption "Experts".    /s/
Audit Alliance LLP Audit Alliance LLP
# C_2016175EN.01001601.xml

| 17.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/16

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Pharm-a-care Laboratories v OHIM — Pharmavite (VITAMELTS)

(Case T-713/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 175/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pharm-a-care Laboratories Pty. Ltd (Sydney, Australia) (represented by: I.A. De Freitas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pharmavite LLC (California, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2015 (Cases R 2649/2014-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Pharmvite LLC and Pharm-a-care Laboratories Pty. Ltd.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action.

| 2. | Pharm-a-care Laboratories Pty. Ltd shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Pharm-a-care Laboratories Pty. Ltd shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

1

---
# C_2015205EN.01002101.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija (Latvia) lodged on 13 April 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs

(Case C-166/15)

(2015/C 205/29)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Criminal proceedings against: Aleksandrs Ranks, Jurijs Vasiļevičs

Criminal proceedings against

Other parties in the case: Finanšu un ekonomisko noziegumu izmeklēšanas prokuratūra, Microsoft Corporation

Other parties in the case:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Under Articles 5(1) and 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, may a person who has acquired a computer program with a ‘used’ licence on a non-original disk, which works and is not used by any other user, rely upon the exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of that computer program, the first purchaser of which acquired it from the rightholder with the original disk, which however has been damaged, when the first purchaser has erased his copy and no longer uses it? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Articles 5(1) and 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, may a person who has acquired a computer program with a ‘used’ licence on a non-original disk, which works and is not used by any other user, rely upon the exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of that computer program, the first purchaser of which acquired it from the rightholder with the original disk, which however has been damaged, when the first purchaser has erased his copy and no longer uses it?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, then, does a person who may rely upon the exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of the computer program have the right to resell that computer program on a non-original disk to a third person, in accordance with Articles 4(2) and 5(2) of Directive 2009/24? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, then, does a person who may rely upon the exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of the computer program have the right to resell that computer program on a non-original disk to a third person, in accordance with Articles 4(2) and 5(2) of Directive 2009/24?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 111, p. 16).

1

---
No. 65718.

#### Beer Stern Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 276988-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), and the record showing that the merchandise consists of nylon ribbons similar in use to fabrics with fast edges, wholly or in chief value of silk, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors and shareholdersof CoreLogic, Inc.:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessmentof Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the"Company"), a subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with theservicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loanoutsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial taxservice provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2016 and forthe year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii),1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii)and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to theservicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Managementis responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether theCompany performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicableservicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicingactivities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errorsthat may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may haveaffected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company duringthe period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legaldetermination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which theCompany served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas TX 75201-2997*

*T: 214-746-6500, F:214-712-6660,*www.pwc.com
No. 41985.

#### Protests 759792-G (A), etc., of Selsi Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

*360Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Oppleman*(25 C. C. P. A. 168, T. D. 49271) and *Selsi*v. *United States*(C. D. 147) the claim at 27)4 percent under paragraph 372 was sustained.
No. 41974.

#### Protest 279190-G of Saks & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel boxes, atomizers, trays, place card stands, photo frames, and corks chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes and hollow flasks were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339. *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445), *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816), *Woolworth*v. *United*
      *357
      *States*(T. D. 47857), Abstract 34153, and *Viking Trading Co.*v. *United Stales*(C. D. 132) cited. Toilet sets stipulated to be similar to those the subject of Abstract 8950 were held dutiable separately, the brushes at 45 percent under paragraph 1407 and the mirrors at 50 percent under paragraph 230.
# Federal Aviation Administration

Airport Technology Research and Development Branch****

| - Airport R&D;    - NAPTF 10th Anniversary 							
  - 2010 HWD-FWD 							Round-up
  - News 
  - R&D Review
  - Conference & Workshop
  - Personnel
  - Visitors
  - Search This Site 
- Downloads
Pavement
Safety

- Projects    - Pavement Design
  - Airport Design
  - Airport Planning
  - Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting
  -  Airport Wildlife Hazard Abatement
  - NAPTF
  - NDT
  - Pavement Materials
  - Runway Surface
  - Visual Guidance 							& Runway Incursion Reduction  Links    -  COE for Airport Technology
  - IPRF
  - AAPTP
  - ACRP
  - IESALC      FAA Airport R&D; Review**Airport R&D Review Newsletter****R&D Annual Review**  
**Airport R&D Review Newsletter**

**2007, Issue 2**

2006, Issue 4 2006, Issue 3 2006, Issue 2 2006, Issue 1 Spring 2005 Winter 2004-2005 Fall 2004 Spring 2004 Fall 2003 Summer 2003 Spring 2003 Fall 2002 Summer 2002 Spring 2002 Winter 2002

**FAA R&D ANNUAL REVIEW**

2006 R&D Annual Review 2005 R&D Annual Review 2004 R&D Annual Review 2003 R&D Annual Review 2002 R&D Annual Review 

**Last Update:      05/18/09**
FAA.gov |			Privacy Policy |			Web Policies & Notices |			Contact Us | 					

**Readers & Viewers:**PDF Reader |			MS Word Viewer |			MS PowerPoint Viewer |			MS Excel Viewer |			WinZip |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
February 3, 1954

Reap. Dec. 8290.

Reap. Dec. 8274.

#### *Freedman & Slater, Inc.*v. *United States.*

Motion by defendant.
A02A1135.

#### WATSON v. THE STATE.

(579 SE2d 827)

Decided March 19, 2003.

*Gordon, Brown & Eberhardt, Gerald W. Brown,*for appellant.

*William T. McBroom III, District Attorney, Thomas J. Ison, Jr., Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Johnson, Presiding Judge.

Division 5 of the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case having been reversed by the Supreme Court, *Watson v. State,*276 Ga. 212 (576 SE2d 897) (2003), that portion of our decision in *Watson v. State,*256 Ga. App. 789 (570 SE2d 30) (2002), is hereby vacated, and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court. Divisions 1 through 4 of our earlier decision are unaffected by the Supreme Court’s decision.

*Judgment of conviction affirmed. Sentence as to fine only vacated.*

*Blackburn, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.*
Exhibit 4.2


 



Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated April 20, 2022, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2109 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-262222) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


April 20, 2022