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

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made to thatcertain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2016, by and amongJ.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, ADivision of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust,National Association, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as OperatingAdvisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer, with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2016-C1 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from March 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go  far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### Best & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6745.

Entry No. 704871, etc.

Invoices dated Glasgow, Scotland, July 9, 1943, etc.

Certified July 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 13, 1943, etc.

(Decided January 13, 1947)

*James W. Bevans*for the plaintiff.

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

Tilson, Judge:

The appeals listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made ■■a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the *issues*herein *are*similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record in that case has been admitted in evidence herein.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise covered by these appeals to be the values found by the appraiser, less any amounts added by the importer to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2017161EN.01002302.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — Renfe-Operadora v EUIPO (AVE)

(Case T-367/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark AVE - Partial invalidity - Appeal brought before the Board of Appeal in a language other than the language of the proceedings - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Application for restitutio in integrum - Duty of due care))

(2017/C 161/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Renfe-Operadora, Entidad Pública Empresarial (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and M.I. Hernández Sandoval, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2015 (Case R 712/2014-5), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum.

restitutio in integrum

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Renfe-Operadora, Entidad Pública Empresarial, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Renfe-Operadora, Entidad Pública Empresarial, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

1

---
# C_2016410EN.01001901.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — LLR-G5 v EUIPO Glycan Finance (SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5)

(Case T-539/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative EU trade mark SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5 - Earlier international word marks Silicium Organique G5- Glycan 5-Si-Glycan-5-Si-G5 and Silicium Organique G5 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 410/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LLR-G5 Ltd (Castlebar, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Glycan Finance Corp. Ltd (Sheffield, United Kingdom)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2015 (Case R 291/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Glycan Finance Corp. and LLR-G5.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LLR-G5 Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LLR-G5 Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

1

---
# Official Journal C 22/28 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 22 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5228 January 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 22

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5228 January 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| 2009/C 022/01 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery
  (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1) | 1 |
| 2009/C 022/02 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment
  (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1) | 59 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

2009/C 022/01

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery
  (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)

1

2009/C 022/02

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment
  (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)

59

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2009/C 022/03 | Note to the reader (see page 3 of the cover) | s3 |

2009/C 022/03

Note to the reader (see page 3 of the cover)

Note to the reader

s3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
No. 53194.

#### Dangkai Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 142087-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Before the Second Division,

January 23, 1940

No. 43078.

#### Protests 952213-G, etc., of McKesson & Robbins, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2017249EN.01002301.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2017 — Ball Beverage Packaging Europe v EUIPO — Crown Hellas Can (Cans)

(Case T-9/15) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing three cans - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Group of articles constituting a single unit - Scope of the description of the registered Community design - Obligation to state reasons - Replacement of a party to the proceedings))

(2017/C 249/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ball Beverage Packaging Europe Ltd (Luton, United Kingdom), authorised to replace Ball Europe GmbH (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Crown Hellas Can SA (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Coulson and J. Koepp, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2014 (Case R 1408/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Crown Hellas Can and Ball Europe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Grants Ball Beverage Packaging Europe Ltd leave to substitute itself for Ball Europe GmbH as applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Grants Ball Beverage Packaging Europe Ltd leave to substitute itself for Ball Europe GmbH as applicant.

| 2. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action.

| 3. | Orders Ball Beverage Packaging Europe to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Crown Hellas Can SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ball Beverage Packaging Europe to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Crown Hellas Can SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  
  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

---
Before the Second Division,

November 21, 1950

No. 54868.

#### Allied Motorcycle Distributors, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 146737-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# C_2016048EN.01010202.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/102

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2015 — Diamantopoulos v EEAS

(Case F-30/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 048/119)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4/5/2015, p. 50.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Cleveland MORRIS, a/k/a Shyem Khalil Morris, Cleveland Morris, Appellant.

No. 04-3050.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 13, 2005.

Decided Sept. 23, 2005.

Eric B. Henson, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America.

Elaine Demasse, Defender Association of Philadelphia Federal Court Division, Philadelphia, PA, for Cleveland Morris.

Before ALITO, FUENTES, and CHERTOFF,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Judge Chertoff resigned prior to the vacatur of this panel’s earlier decision. On remand, this case was decided by a quorum of the original panel. *See*28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, which vacated this Court’s decision dismissing Cleveland Morris’s appeal from his sentence in a criminal case. *See Morris v. United States,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1959, 161 L.Ed.2d 769 (2005). The Supreme Court instructed us to reconsider our decision in light of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Having carefully reconsidered it, we conclude that our earlier order was correct, and we again dismiss Morris’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Our decision is constrained by *United States v. Lockett,*406 F.3d 207 (3d Cir.2005). The Court there held that “where a criminal defendant has voluntarily and knowingly entered into a plea agreement in which he or she waives the right to appeal, the defendant is not entitled to resentencing in light of *Booker.” Id.*at 214. The Court explained that the knowingness and voluntariness of a plea are not vitiated just because the defendant could not foresee that the Supreme Court would later grant him a right to challenge the mandatory application of the Guidelines to his case. *See id.*at 213-14. Since the terms of Morris’s guilty plea mirror those in *Lockett, see id.*at 212-13, Morris has similarly waived his right to challenge his sentence.

Morris argues that his appeal may proceed under an exception set forth in the plea agreement for sentences that “exceed the statutory maximum,” but the sentence he received did not trigger that exception. At his plea colloquy, Morris clearly admitted to having been “a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.” Tr. at 8; *see also id.*at 17-18. This crime, a violation *506of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), carries a maximum sentence of ten years of imprisonment. *See id.*§ 924(a)(2). Morris acknowledged at the plea colloquy that this was the maximum sentence he faced. Tr. at 9. The sentence he actually received, 90 months, thus fell well shy of the maximum he could have received based on the facts he admitted at the colloquy. Because his sentence does not come within one of the exceptions set forth in the plea agreement, Morris’s appeal is foreclosed and must be dismissed.
# C_2016364EN.01003301.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-100/15) (1)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - 2013 annual staff report - Decision of the Appeals Committee))

(2016/C 364/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola and G. Isola, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by: G. Nuvoli and J.-P. Minnaert, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, and subsequently by: G. Nuvoli and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment, firstly, of the applicant’s staff report for 2013 and, secondly, the consecutive and connected decisions of the EIB such as the decision not to promote him to grade D and compensation for the non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Carlo De Nicola to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Investment Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Carlo De Nicola to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Investment Bank.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015, p. 41.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 363 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 363

           Designating February 2006 as ``Go Direct Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2006

   Mr. Coleman (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Designating February 2006 as ``Go Direct Month''.

Whereas the Department of Treasury issued over 70,000 checks worth approximately 
        $61,000,000 that were illegally signed for in 2004;
Whereas the Department of the Treasury receives approximately 500,000 telephone 
        calls each year regarding problems with paper checks;
Whereas the use of direct deposit has resulted in approximately $5,000,000,000 
        in savings for the Federal Government since 1986;
Whereas 1 out of every 5 newly eligible Social Security recipients has yet to 
        sign up for direct deposit;
Whereas the United States would generate approximately $120,000,000 in annual 
        savings if all federal beneficiaries used direct deposit;
Whereas the use of direct deposit is a more secure, reliable, and cost effective 
        method of payment because the use of direct deposit--

    (1) eliminates the risk of lost or stolen checks;

    (2) helps protect against fraud; and

    (3) provides citizens of the United States with more control over their 
money;

Whereas the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank has launched 
        ``Go Direct'', a national campaign organized to encourage citizens of 
        the United States to use direct deposit for the receipt of Social 
        Security and other Federal benefits; and
Whereas, by working with financial institutions, advocacy groups, and community 
        organizations, the sponsors of ``Go Direct'' educate citizens of the 
        United States about the advantages of using direct deposit and assist 
        them during the enrollment process: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) supports the goals and ideas of ``Go Direct'';
            (2) proclaims February 2006 as ``Go Direct Month'';
            (3) commends Federal, State, and local governments, and the 
        private sector, for promoting February as ``Go Direct Month''; 
        and
            (4) encourages all citizens of the United States to--
                    (A) participate in events and awareness initiatives 
                held during the month of February;
                    (B) become informed about the convenience and 
                safety of direct deposit; and
                    (C) consider signing up for direct deposit of 
                Social Security or other Federal benefits.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016068EN.01004501.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 19 November 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-143/15)

(2016/C 068/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Fombaron, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint seeking annulment of the decision terminating early his employment at the European Parliament.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision dated 19 August 2015 rejecting the complaint brought on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision dated 19 August 2015 rejecting the complaint brought on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

| — | annul the European Parliament’s decision dated 25 February 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Parliament’s decision dated 25 February 2015;

| — | annul the European Parliament’s decision dated 2 February 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Parliament’s decision dated 2 February 2015;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

---
(Reap. Dec. 9802)

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5107.

(Decided October 6, 1960)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

*George Gochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel have stipulated and agreed in this case as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the above appeal for reappraisement consists of bamboo porch shades and sets of hardware accessories imported from Japan; and that each bamboo porch shade, as invoiced, is accompanied by one set of hardware accessories.

> That on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise hereinbefore described, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, at the appraised unit values, plus packing and baling charge as invoiced; that said unit values include the cost of the sets of hardware accessories, which cost is 3 cents (U.S. Cy) per set of hardware accessories, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> That the above appeal for reappraisement is limited to the merchandise here-inbefore described and is abandoned as to all other merchandise; and that said appeal may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Accepting the foregoing stipulation as establishing the facts therein recited, I conclude that export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved, and that such value in each case is the appraised unit value, plus packing and baling charge, as invoiced, which value includes the cost of 3 cents (United States currency) of each set of hardware accessories accompanying each bamboo porch shade.

Judgment will issue accordingly.