alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 23891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8320]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Suspicious Activity 
Reporting; Release of Revised Suspicious Activity Reports

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (``FinCEN'') is 
issuing this notice to communicate a delay in the dates for using the 
revised Suspicious Activity Report (``SAR'') forms. The revised SAR 
forms that support joint filing were originally scheduled to become 
effective on June 30, 2007 and mandatory on December 31, 2007. FinCEN 
will establish new dates for using the revised SAR forms in a future 
notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Policy and Programs 
Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at (800) 949-2732.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    It is FinCEN's intention to implement revised SAR forms that 
facilitate joint filing for depository institutions,\1\ casinos and 
card clubs,\2\ insurance companies,\3\ and the securities and futures 
industries.\4\ On December 21, 2006, FinCEN issued a notice on its Web 
site explaining that financial institutions would be able to begin 
filing the revised SAR forms with FinCEN on June 30, 2007.\5\ We are 
postponing this date and the date by which use of the revised forms 
becomes mandatory because of recently implemented data quality 
initiatives. FinCEN will provide advance notice of the new dates for 
using the revised forms at a future time. In the meantime, financial 
institutions will continue to report suspicious activities using the 
existing SAR forms.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 31 CFR 103.18.
    \2\ 31 CFR 103.21.
    \3\ 31 CFR 103.16.
    \4\ 31 CFR 103.15, 103.17, and 103.19.
    \5\ See Additional Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) Revised for 
Other Industries to Support Joint Filing and Reduce Duplicate SARs, 
http://www.fincen.gov.
    \6\ The current SAR forms can be found on FinCEN's Web page at: 
http://www.fincen.gov/reg_bsaforms.html#SAR.

    Dated: April 26, 2007.
William F. Baity,
Deputy Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
 [FR Doc. E7-8320 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
EXHIBIT 12(a)


                         UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
            COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
                                                                                                                  12 Months
                                                                         Year Ended December 31,                     Ended    
                                                           -------------------------------------------------     September 30,
                                                 1992          1993         1994          1995         1996          1997  
                                                 ----          ----         ----          ----         ----          ----  
                                                                        (Thousands of Dollars Except Ratios)   
<S>                                        <C>           <C>          <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Net income for the Period                     $302,748      $297,160     $320,757      $314,107      $304,876      $300,873   
                                              --------      --------     --------      --------      --------      --------
  Add:
    Taxes Based on income                      197,009       182,716      203,827       207,734       196,210       192,556
                                              --------      --------     --------      --------      --------      --------
    Fixed Charges:
       Interest on Debt                        125,798       124,430      135,608       129,239       128,375       133,678(*)
       Amortization of Premium 
         and Discount, Less Expense 
         on Debt; and Bond 
         Defeasance Cost                         9,521         5,170        5,504         5,502         4,269         3,667
       Rentals (See note)                          908         1,314        1,299         3,330         3,458         3,797
                                              --------      --------     --------      --------      --------      --------
         Total Fixed Charges                   136,227       130,914      142,411       138,071       136,102       141,142
                                              --------      --------     --------      --------      --------      --------

Earnings Available for 
  Fixed Charges                               $635,984      $610,790     $666,995      $659,912      $637,188      $634,571
                                              ========      ========     ========      ========      ========      ========

Ratio of Earnings to 
  Fixed Charges                                   4.66          4.66         4.68          4.78          4.68          4.49
                                              ========      ========     ========      ========      ========      ========   
</TABLE>




(*)    Total annual interest charges on all bonds for the twelve months ended
September 30, 1997 was $114,347,000.
Note: Represents the interest factor applicable to rentals.
No. 53743.

protests 145315-K and 145316-K (New York).

#### Chicago Macaroni Co. of N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it involves the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, is subject to an allowance in duties. The protests were sustained to this extent.
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

** **

Reference is herebymade to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2016,by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor,WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer and SpecialServicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and DEUTSCHE BANKTRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent andCustodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM2016-787S (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section11.07 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.           Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.           To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

Leslie Hayton 

Managing Director

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### Victory Shipping Co., Inc., a/c International Models Co. *v.*United States

No. 7404.

Invoice dated Leicester, England, March 13, 1942.

Certified March 13, 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 9, 1942.

Entry No. 750385.

(Decided October 14, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley B. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 48733.

#### Petition 6338-R of Denver Dry Goods Co. (Denver).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It appeared from the testimony of the traffic manager of the petitioning company that the shipment in question was the sixth importation of linens by this concern from the same exporter and that he followed the same procedure in entering these as in the other cases, in which the values were always accepted by the appraiser. He further testified that when later informed by the customs officials that the value was too low he submitted an amended entry at *254the higher-price suggested by them and offered to pay the increased duty at that time, but was advised “it was not necessary to pay the supplemental duty at that time.” Later he was advised that “it was necessary to pay the supplemental duty and also a penalty that was assessed.” From an examination of the record and consideration of all the facts the court was satisfied that the entry was without any intention to defraud the .revenue of the United States, or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted.
# C_2016364EN.01004002.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/40

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Meyrl v Parliament

(Case F-147/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Member of the temporary staff - Termination of employment - Right to be heard))

(2016/C 364/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sonja Meyrl (Bruxelles, Belgique) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and M. Dean, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision terminating the applicant’s contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision du 24 February 2015 to terminate the employment contract of Ms Sonja Meyrl, adopted by the Co-president of the political group ‘Greens/European Free Alliance’, as an authority of the European Parliament authorised to conclude employment contracts; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision du 24 February 2015 to terminate the employment contract of Ms Sonja Meyrl, adopted by the Co-president of the political group ‘Greens/European Free Alliance’, as an authority of the European Parliament authorised to conclude employment contracts;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Meyrl. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Meyrl.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016, p. 46.

---
A98A2459.

#### SAMPSON v. JONES.

(510 SE2d 902)

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff Sampson appeals the denial of his motion for new trial on the general grounds following a jury verdict for defendant Jones in this motor vehicle-pedestrian collision case. Plaintiff was attempting to cross a multi-lane street via a crosswalk at an intersection con*58trolled by a traffic light and was struck by a vehicle driven by defendant, who was attempting to accomplish a right on red turn after coming to a stop at the light. Held:

Decided January 19, 1999.

*Edwards & Youmas, Lonzy F. Edwards,*for appellant.

*Robert S. Slocumb,*for appellee.

In reviewing the trial court’s ruling on the motion for new trial based on the general grounds, the proper standard of appellate review is the “any evidence” test, so that the evidence must be construed most favorably towards the party opposing the motion for new trial. *Jordan v. Stephens,*221 Ga. App. 8, 10 (3) (470 SE2d 733); *Central Nat. Ins. Co. v. Dixon,*188 Ga. App. 680, 681 (1) (373 SE2d 849). The evidence is conflicting in that plaintiff represents that he safely entered the crosswalk after waiting for all traffic to come to a halt at the red light. Defendant’s evidence is that plaintiff “jetted out” into the path of his vehicle as he proceeded to make a right on red turn so as to be in violation of OCGA § 40-6-91 (b). Furthermore, plaintiff’s testimony suggests that he did not wait for the proper signal from the traffic light, but instead entered the crosswalk when faced with solely a green arrow signal contrary to the provisions of OCGA § 40-6-21 (a) (1) (C). Finally, plaintiff’s admission that the last time he saw defendant’s vehicle before it hit him was while it was slowing down to stop at the intersection could have been viewed by the jury as suggesting a lack of due care for his own safety and could have been viewed as impeaching plaintiff’s assertions that he safely entered the crosswalk since defendant’s vehicle was in the curb side lane and was the first vehicle plaintiff would step in front of after entering the crosswalk.

Construed pursuant to the above standard, the trial evidence could be viewed as failing to show negligence on the part of defendant or as showing plaintiff’s own lack of due care for his safety as the proximate cause of his injuries. We find that the jury’s verdict was authorized by the evidence presented at trial. The trial court did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Blackburn and Eldridge, JJ, concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 123 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 123

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 16, 2007

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR D.C. SPECIAL 
              OLYMPICS LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN.

    On June 8, 2007, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may jointly des-

ignate, the 2007 District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement 
Torch Run (in this resolution referred to as the ``event'') may be run 
through the Capitol Grounds as part of the journey of the Special 
Olympics torch to the District of Columbia Special Olympics summer 
games.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds,

 as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol Grounds, in 
connection with the event.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v MICHAEL L. DILLAHAY, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 591, 40 CMR 303

No. 22,258

September 19, 1969

*Captain Frank A. Nelson,*JAGC, USN, and *Lieutenant Allen D.*Black, JAGC, USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles 7. Keever,*USMC, and *Lieutenant Anthony A. Derezinski,*JAGC, USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

The law officer’s inquiry into the accused’s plea of guilty to a charge of desertion, in violation of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10

USC § 885, is similar to that found in United States v Care, 18 USCMA 535, 40 CMR 247. The procedure followed in this case, however, would not meet the standard that must apply to cases *592tried thirty days after the decision in United States v Care, supra.

The accused, in mitigation, simply indicates that he was then a base parolee and desired to remain in the Marine Corps and go to Vietnam. His testimony does not impair his statement found among the allied papers that “I had no intent of returning to duty, had I not been apprehended.” We, therefore, believe his plea of guilty to be provident.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge:

I dissent. See my dissent in United States v Care, 18 USCMA 585, 40 CMR 247.
### RE: Blue Diamond Closing Date

BRUCE NIXON

to: Idalia Perez 05/13/2010 07:52 AM Show Details

History: This message has been forwarded.
05-13-2010

Hi Idalia,

Yes, Blue Diamond has operated the only biomass fue led boiler in the SMAQMD in the past 20 years.

Please contact me if you have any other questions.

Bruce Nixon, P.E. Air Quality Engineer Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Dist rict 777 12th Street 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 phone: (916) 874-4855 (Tue., Thur.) email: bnixon@airquality.org

*******************************************

From: Perez.Idalia@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Perez.Idalia@ epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 10:51 AM To: BRUCE NIXON Cc: Hong.Jeanhee@epamail.epa.gov Subject: RE: Blue Diamond Closing Date

Bruce,

Could you confirm that Blue Diamond was the only fa cility in SMAQMD that had a biomass boiler in the past 20 years?

Thank you,
-Idalia

_____________________ Idalia M. Pérez, Ph.D. Rulemaking Office, Air Division US EPA (AIR-4) 75 Hawthorne St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.972.3248
Fax: 415.947.3579

From: "BRUCE NIXON" <BNIXON@airquality.org>

To: Idalia Perez/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/08/2010 07:01 AM

Subject: RE: Blue Diamond Closing Date 

## Page 1 of 2

8/10/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\iperez\Local Setti ngs\Temp\notesBAAA25\~web0259.htm02-08-2010

Hi Idalia,

Yes, March 1996 is correct.

Bruce Nixon, P.E. Air Quality Engineer Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Dist rict 777 12th Street 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 phone: (916) 874-4855 (Tue., Thur.) email: bnixon@airquality.org

*******************************************

From: Perez.Idalia@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Perez.Idalia@epamail.epa.gov ] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:42 AM To: BRUCE NIXON Subject: Blue Diamond Closing Date

Hi Bruce,

Just wanted to confirm what you had said over the p hone. I believe the voicemail you left said that th e Blue Diamond facility ceased operations in March 1996. I s this correct?

Thanks for the information,
-Idalia

_____________________ Idalia M. Perez, Ph.D. Rulemaking Office, Air Division US EPA (AIR-4) 75 Hawthorne St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.972.3248
Fax: 415.947.3579 

## Page 2 of 2

8/10/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\iperez\Local Setti ngs\Temp\notesBAAA25\~web0259.htm
EXHIBIT 32
 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Relating to a Periodic Report Containing Financial Statements
  (1)
    
    The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the
Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ John L. Walsh
    
    
    
    /s/ Donald E. BrownJohn L. Walsh
    
    
    
    Donald E. BrownDate: May 6, 2011
    
    
    
    Date: May 6, 2011
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 208 

Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the National Citizens’ Crime 

Prevention Campaign. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2005 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the National 

Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign. 

Whereas crime prevention improves the quality of life in every 

community; 

Whereas crime prevention is central to maintaining a sound 

criminal justice system at the national, State, and local 

level and to ensuring safer and more secure communities; 

Whereas 2005 marks the 25th anniversary of the National 

Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign, featuring McGruff 

the Crime Dog, conducted by the National Crime Prevention Council; 

Whereas McGruff the Crime Dog is an icon, recognized as 

the Nation’s symbol for crime prevention; 
2 

•SRES 208 IS

Whereas the National Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign 

has inspired and directed millions of citizens to take action, individually and collectively, to reduce crime, drug 

abuse, and the fear of crime; 

Whereas the National Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign 

has led a multitude of community organizations, including law enforcement, other State and local agencies, civic 

and community groups, faith-based organizations, 

schools, and businesses, to play a vital role in reducing 

crime and building safer communities; and 

Whereas the National Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign 

is a leading example of a campaign conducted by public 

and private individuals and entities on a national, State, 

and local level to improve the quality of life throughout 

the Nation: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) commemorates the 25th anniversary of the 

3 National Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign, and 

4 commends all individuals and organizations involved 

5 in the campaign for advancing the principles and 

6 practice of effective crime prevention; 

7 (2) asks the people of the United States to join 

8 in the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Na9 tional Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign, and of 

10 the campaign’s icon (McGruff the Crime Dog), and 

11 of the campaign’s managing organization (National 

12 Crime Prevention Council); and 
3 

•SRES 208 IS

1 (3) encourages the National Crime Prevention 

2 Council and the Crime Prevention Coalition of 

3 America to continue to promote, through the Na4 tional Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign, indi5 vidual and collective action, in collaboration with law 

6 enforcement and other supporting agencies, to re7 duce crime and build safer communities throughout 

8 the United States. 

Æ
No. 43098.

#### Protests 286677-G, etc., of Lufty Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Venice lace similar to that involved in *Littwitz*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 123, C. D. 217) was held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.