alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.9



|     |                        |                              
|---- | ---------------------- | -----------------------------
|LOGO |                        | Commercial Mortgage Servicing
|     | D1050-084, 8th Floor  
|     | 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 December 1, 2015, by and among WELLS FARGO
COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, C-III ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as
Certificate Administrator, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-P2 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 11.12 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (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 this 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 2017.



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



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**UnionCarbide Corporation and Subsidiaries**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

I, Patrick E. Gottschalk,President and Chief Executive Officer of Union Carbide Corporation (the “Corporation”),certify that:

 

1.              theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarter ended June 30,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.              theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

 

 
| /s/ PATRICK E.  GOTTSCHALK             |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Patrick  E. Gottschalk                 |   |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| Date:  July 29, 2008              |   |

 

29

----
EXHIBIT
10.2


AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





This
Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) is by and between Unico American
Corporation (“Company”) and Lester A. Aaron (“Emp1oyee”):





A.  Paragraph
6 of the Employment Agreement between the Company and Employee which was
effective as of December 15, 2007 is amended in its entirety to read as
follows:





6.
TERM/TERMINATION.  Employee’s employment under this Agreement
shall be for a term beginning on April 1, 2009 and ending December 31,
2011.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be terminated
at any time by Company for Cause or by Employee for other than breach of this
Agreement by the Company upon thirty days written notice. This Agreement may
also be terminated by Company without Cause upon thirty days written notice or
by the Employee at any time on account of the breach of this Agreement by
Company; however, in either of such events, subject to the limitation described
in Section 3.6, the Company shall pay Employee, as and in the manner provided in
Section 3.4, all salary, bonuses and benefits as provided herein for the
remainder of the term of this Agreement.





B.This Amendment is
effective April 1, 2009.





C.  All
other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain
unchanged.








COMPANY:


Unico
American Corporation








By  /s/ Cary L.
CheldinDate:   April 1,
2009


Cary L.
Cheldin, President & Chief Executive Officer







EMPLOYEE:








/s/
Lester A. Aaron Date:   April 1, 2009


Lester A.
Aaron
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-3397

LT Case No. 2022-CF-12230

_____________________________

LOGAN ETIENNE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal. 

A Case of Original Jurisdiction. 

Andrea Hart, of Andera Hart Law, Jacksonville, for 

Petitioner. 

No Appearance for Respondent. 

March 22, 2024 

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this 

opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the 

notice of appeal from the July 19, 2023 judgment and sentence 

rendered in Case No. 2022-CF-12230, in the Circuit Court in and 

for Duval County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). 

PETITION GRANTED. 

HARRIS, KILBANE, and MACIVER, JJ., concur. 
2

____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
# C_2016287EN.01001101.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (reqeust for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by C

(Case C-122/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 2, 3 and 6 - Difference in treatment on grounds of age - National legislation providing, in certain situations, for higher taxation of pension income than earned income - Scope of application of Directive 2000/78 - Competence of the European Union in the field of direct taxation))

(2016/C 287/14)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

C

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to a supplementary tax on pension income, does not fall within the substantive scope of that directive nor, therefore, is it covered by Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

1

---
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 217 

To correct technical errors in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3580. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 

Mr. DINGELL (for himself and Mr. BARTON of Texas) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

To correct technical errors in the enrollment of the bill 

H.R. 3580. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3580, 

3 the Clerk of the House shall make the following correc4 tions: 

5 (1) In subparagraph (I) of section 402(j)(3) of 

6 the Public Health Service Act, as inserted by section 

7 801(a)(2) of the bill: 

8 (A) In clause (i) of such subparagraph (I), 

9 strike ‘‘drugs described in subparagraph (C)’’ 


bajohnson on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 217 IH 

1 and insert ‘‘drugs and devices described in sub2 paragraph (C)’’. 

3 (B) In clause (iii) of such subparagraph 

4 (I), strike ‘‘drugs described in subparagraph 

5 (C)’’ and insert ‘‘drugs and devices described in 

6 subparagraph (C)’’. 

7 (2) In subparagraph (A) of section 505(q)(1) of 

8 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as 

9 added by section 914(a) of the bill, add at the end 

10 the following: 

11 ‘‘Consideration of the petition shall be separate 

12 and apart from review and approval of any ap13 plication.’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PRODPC61 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 14 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 14

 Expressing that Congress has the sole and exclusive power to declare 
                                  war.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 2007

Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing that Congress has the sole and exclusive power to declare 
                                  war.

Whereas the President should present to Congress the question of whether to 
        declare war as provided for in section 8 of article I of the 
        Constitution of the United States; and
Whereas when the valiant men and women of the United States military are away 
        from home to fight a war, to protect the peace, or to enforce 
        disarmament, they will have the full support of the Congress, and 
        Congress will take every possible step to ensure that they are protected 
        from potential attacks and a negative environment, they have the support 
        they need to do their jobs effectively and efficiently, and they are 
        brought home safely as soon as practicable: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That, pursuant to section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the 
United States, Congress has the sole and exclusive power to declare 
war.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Gordon R.  Arnold,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as
adopted  pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the
quarterly report of Sierra Monitor  Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained
in such  quarterly  report  on Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of Sierra  Monitor
Corporation.

Date:    August 12, 2005                        By:    /s/ Gordon R. Arnold
                                                       --------------------
                                                       Gordon R. Arnold
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                                       Chief Financial Officer


                                                                   Page 17 of 17
No. 53774.

protests 76848-K, etc. (New York).

#### Albert Alfandari et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2017202EN.01001601.xml

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (SEIMORA)

(Joined Cases T-425/15, T-426/15 and T-428/15) (1)

1

((Plant variety rights - Application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA - Application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA - Application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02 - Composition of the Board of Appeal of CPVO - Principle of impartiality))

(2017/C 202/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and F. Mattina, acting as Agents, and A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of CVPO, intervener before the General Court: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

In Case T-425/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 003/2010) concerning an application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA; in Case T-426/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 002/2014) concerning an application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA; and, in Case T-428/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 007/2009) concerning an application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ralf Schräder to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ralf Schräder to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

1

---
# C_2016419EN.01004002.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — CJ v ECDC

(Case T-370/15) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Termination - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Right to be heard))

(2016/C 419/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: CJ (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015, CJ v ECDC (F-159/12 and F-161/12, EU:F:2015:38), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part

CJ

ECDC

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in CJ v ECDC (F-159/12 and F-161/12, EU:F:2015:38) so far as that appeal concerns Case F-159/12; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in CJ v ECDC (F-159/12 and F-161/12, EU:F:2015:38) so far as that appeal concerns Case F-159/12;

| 2. | Declares that CJ shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay those incurred by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in the present proceedings, in so far as those costs relate to Case F-159/12; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that CJ shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay those incurred by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in the present proceedings, in so far as those costs relate to Case F-159/12;

| 3. | Sets aside points 3 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in CJ v ECDC (F-159/12 and F-161/12, EU:F:2015:38); |
| --- | --- |

3.

Sets aside points 3 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in CJ v ECDC (F-159/12 and F-161/12, EU:F:2015:38);

| 4. | Refers the present case, in so far as it concerns Case F-161/12, to a chamber other than that which has ruled on the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Refers the present case, in so far as it concerns Case F-161/12, to a chamber other than that which has ruled on the present appeal;

| 5. | Reserves the costs relating to the present proceedings in so far as they relate to Case F-161/12. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Reserves the costs relating to the present proceedings in so far as they relate to Case F-161/12.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

1

---
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–628 PDF 2008

[ERRATA]

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

MAJOR INITIATIVES FOR 2007 AND BEYOND

FULL HEARING

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

Serial No. 109–106

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
(2)

[ERRATA] 

The referenced hearing of the Committee on Homeland Security, 

needs the following edit: 

The hearing date was printed on the cover as September 26, 

2007. September 26, 2006 is the correct date.
# C_2016059EN.01001702.xml

| 15.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Olympus Medical Systems v OHIM (3D)

(Case T-79/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark 3D - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 059/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Olympus Medical Systems Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and C. Opatz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Doherty and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2014 (Case R 1708/2014-2) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign 3D as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Olympus Medical Systems Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Olympus Medical Systems Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

1

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50286 No. 96-50287 No. 96-50568 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RENE GARZA BOTELLO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-92-CR-207

- - - - - - - - - - October 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rene Garza Botello, federal prisoner # 34404-080, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for a new trial, his motion requesting the district court to take judicial notice, and his motion for subpoena duces tecum. Botello has filed motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal in each of his threeNo. 96-50286 No. 96-50287 No. 96-50568 - 2 - appeals. We liberally construe Botello’s district court motions as one motion for a new trial. See, e.g. , United States v. Lopez , 842 F.2d 755, 757 (5th Cir. 1988). Because the district court granted Botello’s IFP motion in No. 96-50287 and because his motions are liberally construed as one motion for new trial, Botello’s IFP motions are DENIED as unnecessary. Botello’s motions to consolidate his appeals are GRANTED. His request for a stay is DENIED as unnecessary. Botello argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. United States v. Botello , No. SA-92-CR-207 (W.D. Tex. October 30, 1995, March 29, 1996, April 3, 1996, April 17, 1996). Botello’s appeals are without arguable merit and are thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because Botello’s appeals are frivolous, they are
DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE APPEALS GRANTED; IFP MOTIONS DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; STAY DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEALS DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
No. 53209.

#### Berolio Import Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 143857-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.