alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED AUGUST 27, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

In The Matter Of: 

EXECUTIVE 

HELICOPTERS, INC 

Respondent 

WASHINGTON, DC ?C I Z 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0476 

Case No. 2009 SO 950054 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On August 22, 2012, the Complainant, the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), filed a Withdrawal of Complaint. The FAA's Withdrawal of Complaint stated 

that the FAA and the Respondent, Executive Helicopters, Inc., had reached a settlement 

and that the FAA was withdrawing its Complaint dated June 12, 2011. There is a Rule 

16 Litigation Scheduling Conference currently set in this matter.· 

It Is Hereby Ordered: 

1) The September 14, 2012 Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, set for 

11 :OOam EST, is cancelled. 

2) Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. §13.215, the Complainant, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), has Withdrawn its Complaint June 12, 2011, and this 

proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 

Cj: f2 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000

1 

Jeremy Bass, President 

Executive Helicopters, Inc., Respondent 

3231 Victory Street 

Hanger 328 West 

Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 

TEL: 843-333-1626 

FAX: 843-828-0307 

ONE COPY 

Autumn Killingham, Complainant's Counsel 

Enforcement Division 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-7728 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

' 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0476 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. '
No. 54850.

#### Overseas Commerce Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 147623-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of reptile skins the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1765 was sustained.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  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 October 1, 2015, by andamong WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS,LLC, as General Special Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., as NCBMaster Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer,MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as OneCourt Square Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor,WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as TaxAdministrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asTrustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-NXS3(the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwisedefined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the General Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 throughDecember 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performanceper the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

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

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersignedhas 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 |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Exhibit 35

SERVICERS ANNUAL CERTIFICATION

MECHANICS BANK

PURSUANT TO
SECTION 4.10 OF THE SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT

This Servicers Annual Certification is delivered pursuant to a sale
and servicing agreement dated as of March 1, 2016 (the Sale and Servicing Agreement) by and among, California Republic Auto Receivables Trust 2016-1, California Republic Funding, LLC,
Mechanics Bank, as Seller, Servicer, Administrator, Calculation Agent and Custodian (in such capacity, the Servicer), and U.S. Bank National Association, as indenture trustee (the Indenture Trustee). All capitalized terms
used but not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned thereto in Appendix A to the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

The
undersigned, a Responsible Officer of the Servicer, hereby certifies that:

1.        A
review of the activities of the Servicer and of the performance of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement during the period from January 1, 2018 to and including December 31, 2018 (the Review Period) was
conducted under my supervision.

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Review Period.

[SIGNATURE APPEARS ON NEXT PAGE]



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, in my capacity as specified below, has caused this
certificate to be executed as of the date indicated below.



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: March 26, 2019 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Nathan J. Duda     
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Nathan J. Duda         
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Kimbell Royalty Partners, LP (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, R. Davis Ravnaas, Chief Financial Officer of Kimbell Royalty GP, LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| Date: March 27, 2017 | /s/ R. Davis Ravnaas                                                                                                                                  |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | President and Chief Financial Officer of Kimbell Royalty GP, LLC, the   general partner of Kimbell Royalty Partners, LP

(Principal Financial Officer |

 

----
# C_2017424EN.01002901.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Sulayr Global Service v EUIPO — Sulayr Calidad (sulayr GLOBAL SERVICE)

(Case T-685/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark sulayr GLOBAL SERVICE - Earlier national word mark SULAYR - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity of the services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 424/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sulayr Global Service, SL (Valle del Zalabi, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by S. Palmero Cabezas, and subsequently by J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sulayr Calidad, SL (Grenada, Spain) (represented initially by E. Bayo de Gispert and G. Hinarejos Mulliez, and subsequently by G. Hinarejos Mulliez and I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2015 (Case R 149/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sulayr Calidad and Sulayr Global Service.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 September 2015 (Case R 149/2015-1) to the extent that it upheld the opposition to registration of the mark applied for in respect of services in Class 40; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 September 2015 (Case R 149/2015-1) to the extent that it upheld the opposition to registration of the mark applied for in respect of services in Class 40;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sulayr Global Service, SL, for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sulayr Global Service, SL, for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court;

| 3. | Orders Sulayr Calidad, SL, to bear its own costs for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court and to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by Sulayr Global Service for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Sulayr Calidad, SL, to bear its own costs for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court and to pay the expenses necessarily incurred by Sulayr Global Service for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

1

---
#### Rogers Peet Co. *v.*United States

No. 6758.

Entry No. 8582, etc.

-Invoices dated London, England, September 9, 1941, etc.

Certified September 18, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 15, 1941, etc.

(Decided January 14, 1947)

*Lane & Wallace*and *Lane, Young .& Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

IClncheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have 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. 43073.

#### Protest 949680-G of Meadows Wye & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of *United States*v. *Dent*(15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 408, T. D. 42588) it was held that duty was illegally exacted on the seven pairs of shoes in question. The protest was therefore sustained.
#### Lord *&*Taylor, Inc., et al. v. United States

No. 6435.

Entry No. 719467, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, September 3, 1941, etc.

Certified September 4, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 14, 1941, etc.

(Decided October 10, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

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

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items-of merchandise concern 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.

Undisputed facts in the record before me establish export value, section 402' (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), 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 importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.
# C_2017078EN.01000401.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Gerrit van Vemde

(Case C-582/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Mutual recognition of judgments - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Scope - Article 28 - Transitional provision - Concept of ‘issue of the final judgment’))

(2017/C 078/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party in the main proceedings

Party in the main proceedings

Gerrit van Vemde

Intervening parties: Openbaar Ministerie

Intervening parties:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28(2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that it covers only judgments which became final before the date specified by the Member State concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7278

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Respondent,

v.

MIKE AZIZ MERZOUG, 

Defendant - Petitioner.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:10-cr-00131-HMH-2)

Submitted: June 12, 2015 Decided: July 2, 2015

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan A. Bartell, Cleveland, Ohio, for Petitioner. William 

N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, 

David C. Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mike Aziz Merzoug appeals the district court’s oral order

denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Bereano 

v. United States, 706 F.3d 568, 575 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating 

standard of review for denial of petition for writ of coram

nobis). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2015146EN.01005102.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/51

---

Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Council

(Case F-32/15)

(2015/C 146/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the applicants’ pay and pension slips for May 2014 in so far as they contain adjustments of 0 % for 2011 and 0,8 % for 2012, and the claim for damages for the material harm allegedly sustained.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decisions and, where necessary, the decisions rejecting the complaints; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decisions and, where necessary, the decisions rejecting the complaints;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicants the arrears of remuneration corresponding to an adjustment of their salaries and pensions at the rate of 1,7 % in 2011 and 2012, by way of compensation for the financial material loss, together with interest for delayed payment at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, as of 1 July 2011 and 1 July 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants the arrears of remuneration corresponding to an adjustment of their salaries and pensions at the rate of 1,7 % in 2011 and 2012, by way of compensation for the financial material loss, together with interest for delayed payment at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, as of 1 July 2011 and 1 July 2012;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
Exhibit 35.2



LOGO

OFFICERS CERTIFICATE

C-III Asset Management LLC

The
undersigned, Kevin Donahue, President of C-III Asset Management LLC (f/k/a Centerline Servicing LLC), the Special Servicer under that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2016, relating to the Citigroup
Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-P3, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-P3(the Pooling and Servicing Agreement), hereby certifies as follows:



|1. | a review of the activities of the Special Servicer and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement during the calendar year 2016 (the Reporting Period) has been made under the
undersigneds supervision;
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | to the best of the undersigneds knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer maintained an effective internal control system relating to its servicing of the Mortgage Loans serviced by it and has
fulfilled in all material respects its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout the Reporting Period.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalized
terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,as of the 1st
day of March, 2017, I have hereunto signed my name.



/s/ Kevin DonahueKevin Donahue, PresidentC-III Asset Management LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company


CGCMT 2016-P3
# C_2015389EN.01006502.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/65

---

Order of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — db-Technologies Deutschland v OHIM — MIP Metro (Sigma)

(Case T-267/15) (1)

1

(2015/C 389/74)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

1

---
RIW Map t

Proposed Plan Management

Roan Plateau Proposed Plan/Final EIS
August 2006

Legend
Ss (JRoan Piatean Planning Area
i [) Rim Boundary
BLM SurfaceSubsurface
[SS] Private SurfaceFederal Subsurface
BLM Oustide Planning Area
__ Private SurfaceSubsurface
Existing Leases for Oil and Gas
Wild & Seenic River Eligibility
7) Hubbard Mesa
(DD Parachute Creck Watershed Management Area
Utility Corridor
AVA Perennial Streans
‘Transportation
ANA Admninistrative Access
AV Closed
ZT Open
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
amit Points
East Fork Parachute Creek
La Magpie Gatch

T6S

‘Scale 1:150,000
Bureau of Land Managmenrt
Glenwood Springs Field Office

86 eee