alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

COMM 2016-DC2

The undersigned, duly authorized officers of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as the Certificate Administrator (a “Certifying Servicer”) under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
dated as of March 1, 2016 (the “Agreement”), by and among, Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor,
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special
Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Certificate Administrator, Paying
Agent and Custodian, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Asset Representations Reviewer here by certifies in accordance with Section 10.11 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicer’s activities from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 (the “reporting period”)
and of such Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | B) | That, as to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

as Certificate Administrator



/s/ Ronaldo Reyes

BY: Ronaldo Reyes

Title: Vice President

Date: March 1, 2019



/s/ Karlene Collins

BY: Karlene Collins

Title: Assistant Vice President

Date: March 1, 2019
(Reap. Dec. 9807)

#### Daiichi Bussan Kaisha, Ltd. *v.*United States

Entry No. 70250, etc.

(Decided October 10, 1960)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for tbe plaintiff.

*George Ooohran Doul),*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties herein:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between tbe respective parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, that tbe export value of tbe merchandise (woolen piece goods) embraced in tbe invoices covered by tbe entries tbe subject of tbe appeals to reappraisement noted on tbe schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof, at tbe time of exportation to tbe United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all pur*508chasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was the invoice unit values.

> XT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign or domestic value for merchandise such as or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals to re-appraisement herein may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold 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 herein involved, and that such value was the invoice unit value in each case.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Toreador Resources Corporation;(2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;(3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operation and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;(4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     (5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: May 10, 2007/s/ Douglas W. Weir

Douglas W. WeirSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
Case No. 18,946.

#### THOMPSON v. CARBERY.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 39.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1811.

New Trial — Replevin—Verdict pop. Value and Damages.

In replevin, if the title to the goods be in issue, the court will grant a new trial, if the jury give the defendant a verdict for the value of the goods, as well as damages for taking them.

[See Case No. 13.945.]

This was a motion for a new trial in an action of replevin, for .a female slave, in which there was a verdict for the defendant for 425 dollars damages.

P. S. Key, for plaintiff.

The jury have given the value of the slave in damages; and as there will be judgment for a return of the property the defendant will get twice the value of the slave.

Mr. Jones, contriL,

said he had contended for vindictive damages; and the question is whether these damages are enormous.

. THE COURT

said it was evident that the jury had given their verdict under a mistake. having given the value of the negro as well as damages; and that as the defendant would have judgment for a return of the property, and a remedy upon the replevin-bond if it should not be returned, they would grant a new trial, unless the parties would agree upon a compromise. The defendant refused, and a new trial was granted upon payment of all the costs.

FITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, absent.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 186 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas 2007 is the 75th year that Brookgreen Gardens is 

open to the public; 

Whereas in 1930 philanthropist Archer M. Huntington and 

his wife, sculptor Anna Hyatt Huntington, purchased 

9,100 acres of South Carolina land that stretched from 

the Waccamaw River to the Atlantic Ocean; 
2 

•HCON 186 EH 

Whereas within the tract of such land were the remnants of 

four rice plantations, including the Oaks, Springfield, 

Laurel Hill, and Brookgreen; 

Whereas the Huntingtons created Brookgreen Gardens on a 

300-acre parcel of land with massive live oak trees which 

were planted nearly two centuries earlier; 

Whereas in 1932 the Huntingtons opened Brookgreen Gardens to the public and established it as both a nature 

preserve and a showcase for American figurative sculpture; 

Whereas Brookgreen Gardens consists of two main components: the Huntington Sculpture Garden and the 

Lowcountry History and Wildlife Preserve; 

Whereas more than 550 works by hundreds of American artists are displayed in the Huntington Sculpture Garden; 

Whereas the Lowcountry History and Wildlife Preserve is 

rich with evidence of the great rice plantations of the 

1800s, contains native and domestic animal exhibits, and 

is the only zoo accredited by the Association of Zoos and 

Aquariums on the coast of either North Carolina or 

South Carolina; and 

Whereas Brookgreen Gardens is designated a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress honors Brookgreen Gardens 
3 

•HCON 186 EH 

1 in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, on its 75th anniversary 

2 of being open to the public. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 

2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 186 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Honoring the 75th anniversary of Brookgreen 

Gardens in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 80 (Thursday, April 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7942]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[MT-922-07-1310-FI-P; NDM 93550]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
NDM 93550

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), Upton Resources, Encore Operating, LP, 
Northern Energy Corporation and WHC Exploration, LLC timely filed a 
petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease NDM 93550, Billings 
County, North Dakota. The lessees paid the required rental accruing 
from the date of termination.
    No leases were issued that affect these lands. The lessees agree to 
new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre and 16\2/3\ 
percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate. 
The lessees paid the $500 administration fee for the reinstatement of 
the lease and $163 cost for publishing this Notice.
    The lessees met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per 
Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). 
We are proposing to reinstate the lease, effective the date of 
termination subject to:
    <bullet> The original terms and conditions of the lease;
    <bullet> The increased rental of $10 per acre;
    <bullet> The increased royalty of 16\2/3\ percent or 4 percentages 
above the existing competitive royalty rate; and
    <bullet> The $163 cost of publishing this Notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids 
Adjudication Section, BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, 
Billings, Montana 59101-4669, 406-896-5098.

    Dated: April 19, 2007.
Karen L. Johnson,
Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section.
 [FR Doc. E7-7942 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas September 27, 2018 No. 04

- 18

- 00607

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.A.M., ET AL , From the 225th Judicial Distric t Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- PA

- 02510 Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant B.J.P. seeks to appeal from a final order terminating h er parental rights. An appeal from such an order is accelerated. See T EX . F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 263.40 5. The trial court signed the final order of termination on August 7, 2018 . Because this is an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal was due on August 27, 2018

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1(b) (requiring notice of appeal to be filed within twenty days after the judgment is signed in an accelerated appeal ) ; see also T EX . F A M . C ODE A NN . § 263.405(c) ( filing of a motion for new trial does not extend the appellate deadline )

. A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was therefore due on September 11 , 2018

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3 (providing a fifteen

- day grace period after the deadline for filing notice of appeal) . Appellant B.J.P. filed h er notice of appeal on August 28, 2018, within the fifteen

- day grace period allowed for filing a motion for extension of time to file the notic e of appeal; however, no motion for extension was filed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3

. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within th e fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing predecessor to Rule 26)

. However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for f a ilin g to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See id. ; T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). It is therefore ORDERED that appellant B.J.P. file, within ten (10) days from the date of this order, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for fai ling to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. If appellant B.J.P. fails to respond within the time provided, her appeal will be dismissed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c).

_________________________________ Reb eca C. Martinez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of September, 2018

.

_____________________________ ______ KEITH E. HOTTLE , Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 31.2


I, Christine R. Larson, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Trinity
Learning Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

          a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
     such  disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
     supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
     registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
     us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
     which this report is being prepared;

          b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
     controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
     about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
     of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
     evaluation; and

          c)    disclosed in this report any change in internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
     recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
     likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
     financial reporting;

     5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

          a)     all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
     design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
     are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
     record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

          b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
     or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
     internal control over financial reporting.


Date:               November 19, 2003

                    /S/ CHRISTINE R. LARSON
                    -------------------------
                    Christine R. Larson
                    Chief Financial Officer
# C_2015221EN.01002702.xml

| 6.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/27

---

Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ v European Commission

(Case F-61/15)

(2015/C 221/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of 25 September 2014 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the AECE’s decision of 25 September 2014 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the AECE’s decision of 25 September 2014 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 107 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that neither the President, the Vice 

President, nor any Member of Congress, justice or judge of the United 

States, or political appointee in the executive branch of the Government 

should belong to a club that discriminates on the basis of sex or race. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. SHERMAN, and Mr. ROTHMAN) 

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the 

Committees on House Administration and Judiciary, 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 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that neither the President, the Vice President, nor any Member of Congress, 

justice or judge of the United States, or political appointee in the executive branch of the Government should 

belong to a club that discriminates on the basis of sex 

or race. 

Whereas Congress respects the right of private association; 

Whereas the right of private association among friends, colleagues, and like-minded individuals is a deeply held 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HCON 107 IH 

American value when it is truly private, but is immorally 

invoked when it is used as a cover for discrimination; 

Whereas the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, justices and judges of the United States, and political appointees in the executive branch of the Government, by virtue of their public office, are obligated to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than what is minimally required by law, a standard of conduct that reflects 

the American value that discrimination is wrong; and 

Whereas Members of Congress and other Government officials have recognized that membership in any club that 

discriminates is unacceptable for a public official, and 

have consequently resigned therefrom: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Play-Equal 

5 Access in Membership Resolution’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS. 

7 It is the sense of the Congress that neither the Presi8 dent, the Vice President, nor any Member of Congress, 

9 justice or judge of the United States, or political appointee 

10 in the executive branch of the Government should belong 

11 to a club that discriminates on the basis of sex or race. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7722

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CARLO GARRETTE MALONE, a/k/a Pokie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CR-97-117, CA-01-75-2)

Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 2, 2002

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlo Garrette Malone, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlo Garrette Malone seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Malone, Nos. CR-97-117; CA01-75-2 (E.D. Va. July 27, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
# C_2016038EN.01002201.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 28 October 2015 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Societatea Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA (CE Oltenia)

(Case C-556/15)

(2016/C 038/32)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Craiova

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

Applicant and appellant:

Defendant and respondent: Societatea Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA (CE Oltenia)

Defendant and respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 107 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the participation of the Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA in the capital of the project company Hidro Tarnița SA, whose object is to construct and operate the Tarnița-Lăpuștești hydroelectric power station, constitutes State aid to the producers of wind and photovoltaic energy in that the declared aim of the project is to guarantee optimal conditions for the installation of greater capacity in the power stations which produce those types of energy, that is to say: (i) is it a measure financed by the State or through State resources, (ii) is it selective in nature, and (iii) can it affect trade between the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 107 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the participation of the Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA in the capital of the project company Hidro Tarnița SA, whose object is to construct and operate the Tarnița-Lăpuștești hydroelectric power station, constitutes State aid to the producers of wind and photovoltaic energy in that the declared aim of the project is to guarantee optimal conditions for the installation of greater capacity in the power stations which produce those types of energy, that is to say: (i) is it a measure financed by the State or through State resources, (ii) is it selective in nature, and (iii) can it affect trade between the Member States?

| 2. | If the answer is in the affirmative, was such State aid subject to the notification [obligation] laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer is in the affirmative, was such State aid subject to the notification [obligation] laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU?

---
here