alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2016, by andamong DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer and Special Servicer,WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and DEUTSCHE BANK TRUSTCOMPANY AMERICAS, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM 2016-787S (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.07 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director of Special Servicing dohereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Special Servicer during the period from March 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Marthinsen

Daniel Marthinsen, ManagingDirector

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
(Reap. Dec. 9372)

#### William Shaland *v.*United States

Entry Nos. *726137;*774409.

(Decided April 2, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George CochranDoub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeals for a re-appraisement were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff and the cases were ordered submitted by the court.

Eule 5(a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MISCELLANEOUS FIELD STUDIES MAP MF-2330

# Bituminous Coal Production in the Appalachian Basin -- Past, Present, and Future

### By Robert C. Milici

#### Digital Compilation By William C. Kallander, Woody G. Wallace, and Eric A. Morrissey

Online Version 1.0

---

#### METADATA

- STANDARD FGDC FORMAT

#### VIEW MAPS



- BROWSE GRAPHICS of MAPS (PDF files)

> Sheet 1
> Sheet 2Sheet 1. Year of Maximum Coal Production by County
> [420 K]
> Sheet 2. Maximum Annual Coal Production by County
> [3.1 MB]Sheet 3
> Sheet 4Sheet 3. Cumulative Production Data, by County
> [1,000 K]
> Sheet 4. Current (1996) Annual Coal Production by County
> [1.6 MB]

#### DOWNLOAD DATA

- ARC/INFO Shape Files (Zipped archive, 1.9 MB)Software to uncompress and extract files is readily available for UNIX platforms. Users of Windows and Macintosh
 computers can access these files using freeware or shareware translation/extraction software. Visit the Digital Mapping Software and Utilities page for more assistance.

---
No. 56674.

protest 172269-K (New York).

#### Samuel F. Pratt Associates, Inc., and Frank J. Markwalter & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question consists of toy building blocks valued at 8 cents or more per pound, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Christopher Lynn YOUNGER, aka Chris Younger, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50219.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 2, 2005.

Robert McGahan, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael Tanaka, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher Younger appeals his sentence imposed under the *pre-Booker*Sentencing Guidelines. *See United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 745, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Younger pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to deliver stolen treasury checks. 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 510(b). The district judge increased Younger’s sentence because she found that he caused over $800,000 in loss, raising his Guideline sentence to a minimum of twenty-four months in prison. Younger did not admit this fact in the plea agreement or otherwise. In fact, Younger hotly contested it.1

*817This case is subject to the limited remand procedure outlined in the recent *Ameline*decision because “it cannot be determined from the record whether the judge would have imposed a materially different sentence had [she] known that the Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory.” *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1083 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc); *see also id.*at 1079 (“We surmise that the record in very few cases will provide a reliable answer to the question of whether the judge would have imposed a different sentence had the Guidelines been viewed as advisory.”).

We accordingly vacate the sentence and remand for the limited purpose set forth in *Ameline.*The district court is to determine whether the sentence would have been materially different if the district court had known that the Guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. *See id.*at 1085. If the sentence would not have been materially different, the district court shall reinstate the original sentence. If the sentence would have been materially different, the district court shall conduct a resentencing. *See id.*

SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Though Younger challenged the district court's loss calculation, he did not raise a Sixth Amendment challenge to his sentence. Therefore, we review for plain error. *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).
No. 53791.

protests 146310-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### Distillers Factors Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Subsidiaries of U.S. Aggregates, Inc.

      Company           Jurisdiction of        Interest
                         Incorporation
-------------------   -------------------  ----------------

SRM Holdings Corp.    Delaware             100% Owned
                                           Subsidiary

Western Aggregates    Delaware             100% Owned
Holding Corp.                              Subsidiary

SRM Aggregates,       Alabama              100% Owned
Inc.                                       Subsidiary

Western Rock          Utah                 100% Owned
Products                                   Subsidiary
Corporation

Cox Rock Products,    Utah                 100% Owned
Inc.                                       Subsidiary

Cox Transport         Utah                 100% Owned
Corporation                                Subsidiary

Jensen Construction   Nevada               100% Owned
& Development, Inc.                        Subsidiary

Sandia                Nevada               100% Owned
Construction, Inc.                         Subsidiary

Mohave Concrete and   Nevada               100% Owned
Materials, Inc.                            Subsidiary
(Nevada)

Mohave Concrete and   Arizona              100% Owned
Materials, Inc.                            Subsidiary
(Arizona)

A-Block Company,      Arizona              100% Owned
Inc. (Arizona)                             Subsidiary

A-Block Company,      California           100% Owned
Inc. (California)                          Subsidiary

Valley Asphalt,       Utah                 100% Owned
Inc.                                       Subsidiary

Dekalb Stone, Inc.    Georgia              70.6667% of the
                                           Common Stock and
                                           100% of the
                                           Preferred Stock

Mulberry Rock         Georgia              100% Owned
Corporation                                Subsidiary

BHY Ready Mix, Inc.   Tennessee            100% Owned
                                           Subsidiary

Bradley Stone &       Tennessee            100% Owned
Sand, Inc.                                 Subsidiary

Tri-State Testing     Utah                 100% Owned
Laboratories, Inc.                         Subsidiary

Geodyne Beck Rock     Utah                 100% Owned
Products, Inc.                             Subsidiary

Monroc, Inc.          Delaware             100% Owned
                                           Subsidiary

Western Aggregates,   Utah                 100% Owned
Inc.                                       Subsidiary

Eagle Valley          Utah                 100% Owned
Materials, Inc.                            Subsidiary

Nevada Aggregates,    Nevada               100% Owned
Inc.                                       Subsidiary

Bama Crushed          Alabama              100% Owned
Corporation                                Subsidiary

Grove Materials       Georgia              100% Owned
Corporation                                Subsidiary
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

s hould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 97-30265 Summary Calendar

_______________________ OLIVER JAMES, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Joe James, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

Baton Rouge Division (96-CV-138-B-M2)

_________________________________________________________________ December 11, 1997 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: 1

Plaintiff Oliver James, individually and on behalf of the estate of his uncle, Joe James (“James”), brings this suit against Primerica Life Insurance Company for breach of a life insurance contract. James filled out an application for life insurance and tendered the required premium in March 1995 and, after the insurer rejected the application because Oliver James2

lacked the required insurable interest to be listed as the owner,

again in June 1995. In both applications, James indicated that he had not been diagnosed with cancer and had not been hospitalized within the last ten years. In fact, James had been diagnosed with and hospitalized for rectal cancer at least since January 1995. He had been released from a week’s stay in the hospital the day before he signed the second application. James died of cancer on August 31, 1995. A policy had not yet been issued because of delays in arranging for an inspection report and paramedical examination of James. However, Oliver James filed a claim under the application’s Conditional Premium Receipt provision, which covered death prior to delivery of the policy. Primerica denied coverage and returned the premiums because James’s certified medical records revealed his diagnosis of cancer, and one of the express terms of the interim coverage was that all representations on the policy were true. Interim coverage also required that the applicant qualify as a “standard risk” under the policy applied for, and undisputed evidence indicates that James was not an acceptable insurance risk.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Primerica on the grounds that any coverage was void because James intentionally misrepresented the status of his health on his application for life insurance. Plaintiff alleges that the3

district court erred in granting summary judgment because material fact issues still exist as to James’s intent to deceive the insurer. Having reviewed the briefs, record and relevant authority, we find no reason to reverse the summary judgment granted by the district court.

AFFIRMED.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Factory Workers' Earnings: Distributions by Straight-Time Hourly Earnings, April 1954

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Factory Workers' Earnings: Distributions by Straight-Time Hourly Earnings, April 1954 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1179*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										April 1954,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4479,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 269 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 269

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 12, 2007

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to correct the 
                   enrollment of the bill H.R. 1585.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1585, the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives shall make the following corrections:
            (1) In the table in section 2201(a)--
                    (A) strike ``Alaska'' in the State column and 
                insert ``Alabama''; and
                    (B) in the item relating to Naval Station, 
                Bremerton, Washington, strike ``$119,760,000'' in the 
                amount column and insert ``$190,960,000''.
            (2) In section 2204(b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (2), strike ``Hawaii'' and insert 
                ``Hawaii)'';
                    (B) in paragraph (3), strike ``Guam'' and insert 
                ``Guam)''; and
                    (C) add at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) $71,200,000 (the balance of the amount authorized 
        under section 2201(a) for a nuclear aircraft carrier 
        maintenance pier at Naval Station Bremerton, Washington).''.
            (3) In section 2703--
                    (A) insert ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
                '' before ``Funds'';
                    (B) in paragraph (4), strike ``$2,107,148,000'' and 
                insert ``$2,241,062,000''; and
                    (C) add at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(b) General Reduction.--The amount otherwise authorized to be 
appropriated by subsection (a) is reduced by $133,914,000.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00260

- CR
Nathan Timothy Farias v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 430th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 4870

- 14

- J

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered th is cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. June 21, 2018
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

79–012 2018

115th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 115–158 

DESIGNATION OF FUNDING FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

DESIGNATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM ALL FUNDING SO DESIGNATED BY THE 

CONGRESS, PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND 

LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019 AND CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS 

ACT, 2019, DIV A, SEC. 9023 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2018.—Referred to the Committee on Appropriations and 

ordered to be printed 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 28, 2018. 

Hon. PAUL D. RYAN, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 9023 of division 

A and section 113(b) of division C of the Department of Defense 

and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.R. 

6157; the ‘‘Act’’), I hereby designate for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism all amounts (including rescissions) and contributions from foreign governments so designated by 

the Congress in the Act pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as outlined in the enclosed list of accounts. 

The details of this action are set forth in the enclosed memorandum from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD J. TRUMP. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
2 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 3 here HD158.001
3 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 4 here HD158.002
4 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 5 here HD158.003
5 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here HD158.004
6 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here HD158.005
# C_2018190EN.01002302.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 — Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission

(Case T-675/15) (1)

1

((Dumping - Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in China and Taiwan - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Normal value - Selection of the appropriate third country - Adjustments - Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Calculation of the dumping margin - Adjustments - Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Injury - Causal link))

(2018/C 190/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd (Taiyuan, China) (represented by: N. Niejahr, lawyer, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Eurofer, Association Européenne de l’Acier, ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Killick and G. Forwood, Barristers, and C. Van Haute, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2015 L 224, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

1

---
Case No. 8,629.

#### LYMAN v. MYERS.

[Cito.ct sub nom. Lyman Ventilating <!t Railroad Co. v. My res. in Lyman Ventilating &_Uefr iterator Co. v. Lalor, Caso No. S,(i32. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
Case No. 8,630.

#### LYMAN PATENT REFRIGERATOR CO. v. OSWALD.

[Cited in Lyman Ventilating & Refrigerator Co. v. Lalor. Case No. 8,(582. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.!