alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (a) | A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 has been made under my supervision. |

|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period. |

|                                                                                                                          |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                          |
| /s/ Sumito Mulchandani                                                                                                   |
| Sumito MulchandaniAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2016-B |
|WELLS FARGO(logo) | Commercial Mortgage ServicingD1050-084, 8th Fl401 South Tryon StreetCharlotte, NC 282021-800-326-1334
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made
to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2016, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING
CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor
and Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM 2016-CCRE28 (the “Agreement”).
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this
Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer
during the period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (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 the 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 2019.



|/s/ Leslie Hayton | 
|----------------- | 



Leslie Hayton

Managing Director

Wells
Fargo Bank



|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | Together we’ll go far
|---------------------- | ---------------------
(Reap. Dec. 8398)

Entry No. 757185-1/2, etc.

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided March 4, 1955)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief 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:

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

> 1 — That the merchandise the subject of the appeals enumerated in the schedule hereto annexed and made a part hereof consists of vitamin products imported from Holland.

> 2 — That, on or about the dates of exportation of the said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade, for home consumption therein or for export to the United States; that such or similar imported merchandise was not at the aforesaid times freely offered in the United States for sale for domestic consumption therein; that cost of production, as defined in See. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis of appraisement of the said merchandise; and that such cost of production is represented by the invoice unit prices less charges for ocean freight, air freight, extra air freight, air mail postage, insurance and consular fee, as invoiced.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals herein may be submitted on this stipulation.

*465On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) 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 were the invoice unit prices, less charges for ocean freight, air freight, extra air freight, airmail postage, insurance, and consular fee, as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 48102.

#### Protest 915354-G, etc., of Henry Pollak, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the hats in question are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) the claim under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          26,192
<SECURITIES>                                   930,375
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,542,544
<ALLOWANCES>                                    59,766
<INVENTORY>                                     82,288
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           8,483
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,805,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      4,288,535
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     834,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,805,319
<SALES>                                        488,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               488,444
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,410
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,227
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             204,761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                126,091
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,291
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             86,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    86,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016118EN.01000202.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Furkan Tedemir, legally represented by his parents Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir v Kreis Bergstraße

(Case C-652/15)

(2016/C 118/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Furkan Tedemir, legally represented by his parents Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir

Applicant:

Defendant: Kreis Bergstraße

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the aim of efficient management of migration flows constitute an overriding reason in the public interest capable of denying exemption for a Turkish national born in federal territory from the requirement for a residence permit which he could claim by virtue of the standstill clause of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the Development of the Association? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the aim of efficient management of migration flows constitute an overriding reason in the public interest capable of denying exemption for a Turkish national born in federal territory from the requirement for a residence permit which he could claim by virtue of the standstill clause of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the Development of the Association?

| 2. | If the Court of Justice of the European Union answers the above question in the affirmative: What are the qualitative requirements for the existence of an ‘overriding reason in the public interest’ in relation to the aim of efficient management of migration flows? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the Court of Justice of the European Union answers the above question in the affirmative: What are the qualitative requirements for the existence of an ‘overriding reason in the public interest’ in relation to the aim of efficient management of migration flows?

---
Before the Second Division,

November 28, 1950

No. 54879.

#### Kelbert Watch Co. *v.*United States,

protests 111303-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items of merchandise marked “A” or “B” on the invoices consist of watch movements similar in all material respects to those which were the subject of *United States*v. *Helbros Watch Co. et al.*(38 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 430). Upon the agreed statement of facts and the cited authority, the items marked “A” were held properly dutiable at the base rate of 90 cents each as watch movements more than 1 inch but less than 1.77 inches wide, and the items marked *“B”*were held dutiable at $1.20 each as watch movements more than *%o*of 1 inch but not more than 1 inch wide under paragraph 367 (a) (1), as modified, *supra.*
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unico American
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Erwin Cheldin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and

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



                    /s/  Erwin Cheldin
                    ------------------
           Name:    Erwin Cheldin
           Title:   Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
           Date:    May 13, 2004




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Unico American Corporation, and
will be retained by Unico American Corporation, and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 09-0416 

Focus Ready Draft 4/16/2009 Standard Review Report 6/22/2009 

ENGINEER: Arnold \ AH 

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE:

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Label: No 

Gen Eqpt: 

Respirator: 

Health Effects:

TLV/PEL:

LVE PPE:

CRSS : 

Chemical Name:

S-H20: 0.000001 g/L @ 

VP: 1.0E-6 torr @ 

MW: %<500 %<1000 

Physical State and Misc CRSS Info: 

Neat: Mfg: Proc/Form: 

End Use:
Consumer Use: 

SAT (concerns) (04/10/2009): 

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: 

Migration to groundwater: Unknown 

PBT rating: PBT1 P=U; B=U 

Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation 

Eco: 1 No releases to Water 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2A 

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: 

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: 

P2 Claim:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No 
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 09-0416 

Processing:

Number of Sites/ Location:

Days/yr: 

Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below 

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources 

to the same medium.
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:

Basis: 

Inhalation:

Dermal:
CBI: No

MEMORANDUM of CBI TELEPHONE CONVERSATION 

CALL BY: Ariel Hou 

Organization: ERG 

CALL TO:

Organization:

Date: 04/13/2009 

Time: 11AM 

Phone: 

Concerning what TSCA CBI? 

PMN: 09-0416
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
registrant's  financial  statements  as of and for the six  month  period  ended
September  26,  1998,  and is  qualified  in its  entirety by  reference to such
financial statements:
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            APR-03-1999 
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-26-1998 
<CASH>                                           694,981 
<SECURITIES>                                     663,313 
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0 
<INVENTORY>                                    2,643,727 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,328,890 
<PP&E>                                         3,492,766 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,087,824 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,960,130 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,576,108 
<BONDS>                                                0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0 
<PREFERRED>                                            0 
<COMMON>                                         153,175 
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,609,252 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,960,130 
<SALES>                                        7,794,674 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,794,674 
<CGS>                                          4,655,597 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,655,597 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,860,027 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                57,387 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (718,036)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (718,036)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0 
<CHANGES>                                              0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    (718,036)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.06)
        


</TABLE>
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Mississippi Flyway
August 5, 1970

No. 70-54

#### Albert S. McLemore, CDR, U. S. Navy v Honorable John Chafee, The Secretary of the Navy and RADM Joseph B. McDevitt, The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is, hereby dismissed. United States v Snyder, 18 USCMA 480, 40 CMR 192 (1969).
July 7, 2015

Mr. Gregory B. Mays

2220 Swamp Fox Rd.

Midlothian, VA 23112

Dear Mr. Mays:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 26th 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2468), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
# Official Journal C 339A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.339.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 339A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5620 November 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.339.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 339A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5620 November 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market |
| 2013/C 339A/01 | Vacancy notice for the post of chairperson of the Boards of Appeal | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

2013/C 339A/01

Vacancy notice for the post of chairperson of the Boards of Appeal

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |
| 104 | |
| 109 | |
| 111 | |
| 112 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 117 | (ET) |
| 118 | |
| 120 | |
| 131 | |
| 143 | |
| 160 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 162 | |
| 166 | |
| 167 | |
| 168 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 | |
| 174 | |
| 176 | (BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 180 | (MT) |
| 182 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 183 | (IT) |
| 191 | |
| 192 | |
| 193 | |
| 194 | |
| 196 | |
| 197 | |
| 199 | |
| 200 | |
| 204 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 210 | (LV) |
| 211 | (PL) |
| 219 | |
| 227 | |
| 231 | |
| 235 | |
| 240 | |
| 264 | |
| 269 | |
| 276 | |
| 277 | |
| 279 | (PT) |
| 286 | (ET) |
| 289 | |
| 290 | |
| 292 | (SK) |
| 293 | (EN) |
| 294 | (DE) |
| 295 | (DA) |
| 299 | |
| 300 | (LT) |
| 301 | |
| 302 | |
| 308 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 309 | |
| 310 | |
| 317 | |
| 320 | |
| 321 | |
| 322 | |
| 335 | |
| 339 | |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

104

109

111

112

(DE/EN/FR)

117

(ET)

118

120

131

143

160

(DE/EN/FR)

162

166

167

168

172

173

174

176

(BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

180

(MT)

182

(DE/EN/FR)

183

(IT)

191

192

193

194

196

197

199

200

204

(DE/EN/FR)

210

(LV)

211

(PL)

219

227

231

235

240

264

269

276

277

279

(PT)

286

(ET)

289

290

292

(SK)

293

(EN)

294

(DE)

295

(DA)

299

300

(LT)

301

302

308

(DE/EN/FR)

309

310

317

320

321

322

335

339

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Alfred Dunhill of London, *Inc. v.*United States

No. 6447.

Entry No. 770076, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, December 12, 1940, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 24, 1941, etc.

(Decided October 17, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rg,o,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, 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.