alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2010 - 0517 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2009 - SW - 73 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
(Reap. Dec. 8843)

#### Carbons, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 702819.

(Decided June 13, 1957)

*Fred*Bennett; *Jordan & Klingaman,*associate counsel; for the plaintiff.

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

Johnson, Judge:

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

> ' IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court,

> 1- That all the merchandise on the entry the subject of the above-entitled reappraisement appeal consists of arc light carbons imported from France.

> 2- That the issues in the aforesaid appeal are the same in all material respects as those decided in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*R. D. 8590, and that the record in the said R. D. 8590 may be incorporated in the record in the aforesaid appeal.

> 3- That the appraised value of the merchandise in the aforesaid appeal, less 15.35 per cent, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that, on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise herein involved, merchandise such as or similar thereto was not sold or offered for sale in the country of exportation for export to the United States.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the reappraisement appeal herein may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, and that such value was the appraised value, less 15.35 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2015320EN.01003002.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/30

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — Banimmo v Commission

(Case T-293/15) (1)

1

((Public service contracts - Withdrawal of the contested measure - No need to adjudicate on the action))

(2015/C 320/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Banimmo SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V. Ost and M. Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of 9 April 2015 by which the Commission rejected the offer which Banimmo had submitted following a property prospecting notice to meet the office space requirements of the Commission in Brussels (OJ 2014/S 130-231896).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1) | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2) | There is no longer any need to rule on Banimmo’s application that the present action be adjudicated under an expedited procedure. |
| --- | --- |

2)

There is no longer any need to rule on Banimmo’s application that the present action be adjudicated under an expedited procedure.

| 3) | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Banimmo, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Banimmo, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

1

---
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

**2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement(the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of February 1,2016 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as General Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as General Special Servicer, National CooperativeBank, N.A. as NCB Master Servicer and NCB Special Servicer, PentalphaSurveillance LLC as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer, WellsFargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator, and WilmingtonTrust, National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo CommercialMortgage Trust 2016-C32, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2016-C32 **(WFCM 2016-C32)**

 

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1. All servicing activitiesand performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2. A review of the servicingactivities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of February18, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

Date: March 1, 2017
No. 39049.

#### Protests 760716-G, etc., of Borden’s Sales Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion, by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49389) the protests were sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Irma Bejines VIDALES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-16268.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 15, 2005.

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

*53Lawrence G. Brown, Esq., USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Thomas W. Flynn, Esq., Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Susan Ferguson, The Chase Law Group, Studio City, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Irma Bejines Vidales (“Petitioner”) appeals the district court’s denial of the habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.

Petitioner’s trial attorney did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to locate, interview, and subpoena a potential exculpatory witness. The district court determined that although the attorney attempted to locate the witness, no one knew how to find him. This finding was not clearly erroneous. *See United States v. Lang,*149 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir.1998). Furthermore, evidence in the record indicates that the witness did not want to be found, so even if the attorney had taken down the witness’s address at the meeting he attended with Vidales, there is no evidence supporting a conclusion that the witness would have been found at that address later. An attorney’s failure to locate an exculpatory witness does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel when evidence indicates the witness is in hiding.

Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that her trial attorney actively represented conflicting interests which affected her attorney’s performance. *See Cuyler v. Sullivan,*446 U.S. 335, 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). Petitioner’s trial attorney testified before the district court that he did not advise the potential witness to flee, and the district court elected to favor the attorney’s testimony over Petitioner’s. Nothing in the record compels the conclusion that the district court’s credibility determinations were clearly erroneous. In fact, the record indicates that after Petitioner fired her trial attorney, she hired a new attorney to file a motion for a new trial; however, she never told her second attorney that her trial attorney had allegedly counseled the potential witness to flee. It is implausible that Petitioner would not have related this information to her second attorney if it were in fact true.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 54877.

#### Gafco, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 57367-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2015381EN.01001201.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/12

---

Appeal brought on 22 April 2015 by Marpefa, S.L. against the order of 3 February 2015 of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) in Case T-708/14, Marpefa v OHIM

(Case C-181/15 P)

(2015/C 381/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Marpefa, S.L. (represented by: I. Barroso Sánchez-Lafuente, abogado)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs),

Other parties to the proceedings:

Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment

By order of 6 October 2015, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---
No. 39059.

#### Protest 915343-G of Leonard W. Moritz Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Compliance with the regulations as to proof of antiquity is a condition precedent to free entry under paragraph 1811. *Grieve*v. *United States*(T. D. 46895) cited. As these regulations were not complied with the-protest was overruled.
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Anthony Sfarra,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the Wells FargoCommercial Mortgage Trust 2016-C33 (the "Exchange Act periodicreports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

National CooperativeBank, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as SpecialServicer, National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer, WilmingtonTrust, National Association, as Trustee, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, asOperating Advisor, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., asServicing Function Participant, National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer for the 225Liberty Street Mortgage Loan, Wilmington Trust, National Association, asTrustee for the 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan, Citibank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator for the 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan, Citibank,N.A., as Custodian for the 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan, CoreLogicCommercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant forthe 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan, and National Tax Search, LLC, asServicing Function Participant for the 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 22, 2019

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Amendment DEIP UAL th
 Code
 Board
  Amendment and Restatement of Section 2(i)
 Change in Control.
 Amendment and Restatement of Section 2(m)
 Continuity Directors.
 Amendment and Restatement of Section 2(p)
 Disability.




---



##### 



Amendment and Restatement of Section 2(ii)
 Unforeseeable Emergency
 Amendment and Restatement of Section 7(a)(iv)
 Time of Distribution th th
 Amendment and Restatement of Section 7(b)
 Distribution Due to Unforeseeable Emergency
  2




---



##### 



Amendment and Restatement of Section 7(c)
 Small Benefits
 Cash Account
 Share Account
  Amendment and Restatement of Section 7(f)(i)
 th
  3




---



##### 



Amendment and Restatement of Section 12(a)
        4




---



##### 



Amendment to Section 12(b)
  Amendment to Section 12(d)
 th
 Amendment and Restatement of Section 15(b)
   UAL CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Paul R. LovejoyName: Paul R. LovejoyTitle:   Senior Vice President,             General Counsel and Secretary
  5
No. 50270.

#### Protests 51659-K, etc., of H. W. Gray Co. (New York).

Opinion by Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Case No. 8,046.

#### LANE v. The BEDFORD.

[38 Hunt, Mer. Mag. 711.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

1857.1

Collision — Fog—Location op Vessel Known.

[Where a steam ferryboat has seen and repeatedly passed in the Dight a schooner anchored near her track, she cannot excuse a collision in the morning because of a fog so thick that other vessels could not be seen from her deck.]

[This was a libel in rem by Robert L. Lane and others against the steamboat Bedford for collision.]

This was a libel filed by the owners of the schooner Mary D. Lane to recover damages occasioned to her by a collision with the steamboat, which occurred near the Wall street ferry, upon which the steamboat was running, on the morning of December 17, 1853. The schooner had hauled out into the stream the day before and anchored, as the libelants claimed, below the ferry, and next morning, during a heavy fog, she was run into by the steamboat coming from the Brooklyn side. The claimants allege that she was anchored in the track of the ferryboats.

Before BETTS, District Judge.

1

 [Modified in Case No. 1,216.]

HELD BY THE COURT.

That the position of the schooner cannot be made the turning point in the case, because the extreme darkness at the time of the collision prevented the witnesses from fixing it with any certainty. That the ferryboat cannot justify going out into the river under a free head of steam in such a darkness that another vessel could not be seen from her deck. She had no right to enter upon a trip in such a helpless state from the condition of the atmosphere, more than if she had been unnavigable from the loss of her helm or motive power. The libelant’s vessel had been seen and safely passed repeatedly during the same night, and only a few minutes previous, although the fog was thick, and as the impediment and embarrassment of the ferryboat was not cast upon her by anything unexpectedly cast upon her passage, but was palpably before her when she started, the court is bound that she took the risk upon herself of making the passage safely in respect to the schooner.

Decree for libelants, with a reference to compute the damages.

[This case was taken upon appeal to the circuit court, which held both vessels in fault, and divided the damages. The Bedford, Case No. 1,216.]
# C_2016287EN.01003703.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/37

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 — Loquerie v Commission

(Case F-57/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 287/47)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 29/6/2015, p. 46.

1

---
No. 53748.

protest 793208-G (Seattle).

#### Saito Trading Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

When the case was called for trial, counsel for the plaintiff called the court’s attention to the fact that transmitted with the official papers was a so-called “Appraiser’s Report” wherein the merchandise was described as “kelp meal.” Counsel for the Government moved in evidence the collector’s letter transmitting the protest to the court. The collector likewise described the merchandise as “kelp meal.” Since both the appraiser and collector considered the imported material to be kelp meal, a form of kelp, the claim for free entry under paragraph 1705 was sustained, following *Centennial Flouring Mills Co. et al.*v. *United States*(29 C. C. P. A. 264, C. A. D. 200). *United States*v. *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al.*(35 C. C. P. A. 124, C. A. D. 381) cited.

Cole, J., concurring.
# C_2017014EN.01000501.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesas — Latvia) — ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ SIA v ‘Swedbank’ AS

(Case C-156/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/47/EC - Scope - Definition of ‘financial collateral’, ‘relevant financial obligations’ and ‘provision’ of financial collateral - Whether it is possible to enforce financial collateral notwithstanding the commencement of insolvency proceeding - Current account agreement including a financial collateral clause))

(2017/C 014/06)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:
  ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ SIA

Defendant:
  ‘Swedbank’ AS

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements is to be interpreted as conferring on the taker of financial collateral, such as the collateral at issue in the main proceedings, whereby monies deposited in a bank account are pledged to the bank to cover all the account holder’s debts to the bank, the right to enforce the collateral, notwithstanding the commencement of insolvency proceedings in respect of the collateral provider, only if, first, the monies covered by the collateral were deposited in the account in question before the commencement of those proceedings or those monies were deposited on the day of commencement, the bank having proved that it was not aware, nor should have been aware, that those proceedings had commenced and, second, the account holder was prevented from disposing of those monies after they had been deposited in that account.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

---