alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8303)

#### United States *v.*John D. Winchester

Entry Nos. 83 and 49.

(Decided April 8, 1954)

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

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of the im*610ported merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is 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, was the value stated in Column 11 of each invoice in each case, less 4%, tax included, plus packing as shown on each of the invoices in each of the cases.

> IT IS FURTHER AGREED that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted for decision upon 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, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was the value stated in column 11 of each invoice in each case, less 4 per centum, tax included, plus packing as shown on each of the invoices in each of the cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

RE: Annual Statement ofCompliance for COMM 2015-LC23 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of November 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned,a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as CertificateAdministrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of andfor the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

/s/ Jeffrey Coletta

Jeffrey Coletta 

Assistant Secretary

 

  

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7562

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte , Senior District Judge. ( 8:97

- cr - 00053

- PJM

- 1; 8:17

- cv - 03111

- PJM )

Submitted : February 22 , 2018 Decided: February 27, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryl and, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealabl e unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 5 29 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that
the motion state s a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S.
at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dism iss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
**Certifications**

I, Richard Simpson, certifythat:

 

1.            I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CitigroupCommercial Mortgage Trust 2016-GC36 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.            Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary 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 my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.            Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5.            All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed inthis report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certificationsabove, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the followingunaffiliated parties: KeyBank National Association; Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation; Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC; Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC;Situs Holdings, LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; CoreLogic Commercial RealEstate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC.; and Berkeley Point CapitalLLC.

 

 

 

Date:       March 27, 2020

 

/s/ Richard SimpsonRichard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 28 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative postage stamp 

should be issued to promote public awareness of Down syndrome. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2007 

Mr. SESSIONS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative 

postage stamp should be issued to promote public awareness of Down syndrome. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that— 

3 (1) the United States Postal Service should 

4 issue a commemorative postage stamp to promote 

5 public awareness of Down syndrome; and 

6 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee of 

7 the United States Postal Service should recommend 

8 to the Postmaster General that such a stamp be 

9 issued. 

Æ 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT23**

 

**Analysis,Research & Planning Corporation’s Consent**

 

 

Union CarbideCorporation:

 

Analysis, Research &Planning Corporation (“ARPC”) hereby consents to the use of ARPC’s name and thereference to ARPC’s reports dated January 9, 2003, January 26, 2004, January26, 2005 and January 3, 2006 in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofUnion Carbide Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2006.

 

 
| /s/ B. THOMAS FLORENCE                         |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|
| B. Thomas Florence                             |
| President                                      |
| Analysis, Research  & Planning Corporation |
| July 28, 2006                                  |

 

22

----
Page 1 of 1

May 17, 2010

CEQ review of the revised “NCEA Proposed Draft SAB Peer Review Charge for EPA’s Response to “Health Risks from Dioxin and Related Compounds: Evaluation of the EPA Reassessment (2006)” Published by
the National Research Council of the National Acade mies

CEQ has reviewed the revised draft SAB charge for t he dioxin Response to Comments and we do not have any changes.
No. 50690.

#### Protests 113948-K, etc., of C. J. Tower & Sons (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held entitled to free entry as claimed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 86 (Friday, May 4, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25202-25203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8508]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD05-07-039]
RIN 1625-AA08


Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Chester River, 
Chestertown, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is implementing the special local regulations 
at 33 CFR 100.533 during the Maryland Swim for Life swim event to be 
held on June 16, 2007. This action is necessary to provide for the 
safety of life on navigable waters before, during and after the event. 
The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area 
for the safety of event participants and support vessels in the event 
area.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The regulations at 33 CFR 100.533 will be enforced 
from 6:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 16, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Houck, Marine Events 
Coordinator, Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins 
Point Road, Baltimore, MD 21226-1971, and (410) 576-2674.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Maryland Swim for Life Association will 
sponsor the ``Maryland Swim for Life'', an open water swimming 
competition held on the waters of the Chester River, near Chestertown, 
Maryland. Approximately 100 swimmers will start from Rolph's Wharf and 
swim up-river 2.5 miles then swim down-river returning back to Rolph's 
Wharf. A large fleet of support vessels will be accompanying the 
swimmers. Therefore, to ensure the safety of participants and support 
vessels, 33 CFR 100.533 will be enforced for the duration of the event. 
Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.533, from 6:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 
16, 2007, vessels may not enter the regulated area unless they receive 
permission from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Vessel traffic may be 
allowed to transit the regulated area only when the Patrol Commander 
determines it is safe to do so.
    In addition to this notice, the maritime community will be provided 
extensive advance notification via the Local Notice to Mariners and 
marine information broadcasts so mariners can adjust their plans 
accordingly.


[[Page 25203]]


    Dated: April 24, 2007.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E7-8508 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
#### Bates *& al. versus*Churchill.

A written agreement by a debtor, that in consideration of his indebtedness he will let his creditor have certain specified articles at a time and place specified, at the market price, is a valid contract, evidencing a legal consideration, and imposing on the debtor the duty to set out the articles for the creditor at the time and place agreed.

Assumpsit on the following contract. “In consideration of what I am indebted to Bates & Selden, I hereby agree to let them have fifteen tons of good hay at my barn, the fall and winter coming, at the market price. July 22, 1842.”

At the trial before Tenney, J. the defendant offered to prove, that at the pay-day named in the contract, he had sufficient hay in his barn to pay it. It was never called for by the plaintiffs, and it was never set apart by the defendant for paying the note. The evidence was rejected, and a default was entered. The case, by agreement, was then reserved for a legal disposition by the court.

Abbott, for plaintiffs.

Foster, for defendant.

Tenney, J.,

orally.—The plaintiffs consider this to be a note, payable in specific articles. The defendant contends it was but an arrangement preliminary to a contract of *sale;*that, before the plaintiffs could have any rights under it, there were acts to be done by them. The parties must have had *32some design. The plaintiffs were to have something beneficial. But, on the defendant’s construction, they could not be benefited. For on a non-fulfilment by defendant, they could have recovered no damage. In a suit, the hay must have been valued at its current price; the price which they would have to pay to others. There was then no object in such a trade.

It is objected, that there was no consideration for the promise. We think otherwise. There was an implied contract by plaintiffs to forbear payment.

Again, it is said, this paper, not being negotiable, did not discharge the old debt. But that does not disprove a consideration.

If the agreement was not executory, the plaintiffs had no further acts to do. They need not go for the hay or demand it. Unless the defendant had set it apart, they could not take it without a trespass. Merely to have the hay was not a fulfilment by the defendant of his contract. He was, by a sound construction, to set it out for the plaintiffs at the time and place agreed. *Judgment on the default.*
MEDIACOMM BROADCASTING SYSTEMS, INC.
                                d/b/a SHOPBIZ.COM







                                Exhibit No. 10.6
                              Employment Agreement
                                      with
                               Steven S. Montague
                              dated February 4 2000


<PAGE>


MediaComm Broadcasting Systems, Inc.
------------------------------------

This Agreement, made on February 4, 2000, by and between MediaComm Broadcasting
Systems, Inc., (hereinafter "MBSI") and Steven S. Montague (hereinafter
"Employee"). This Agreement replaces any previous agreements.

     1.   Employee Responsibility:

          A.   Employee is responsible for carrying out the duties as President
               of MBSI.

     2.   Compensation:

          A.   Employee will receive a salary of $50,000 per year.

          B.   Employee is entitled to participate in employee benefit plans
               maintained by MBSI.

          C.   Employee can renew his contract from year-to-year unless
               terminated by either himself or MBSI upon not less than 14 days
               advance written notice.

     3.   Termination:

          A.   Compensation upon termination:

               i.   Voluntary termination (Employee resignation)-Salary will be
                    paid to Employee up to and including the last day of
                    employment.

               ii.  Involuntary termination (Employee fired by MBSI)-Salary will
                    be paid to Employee up to and including the last day of
                    employment.

          B.   Company property-Upon termination all MBSI material and property
               will be returned by Employee to MBSI.

          C.   Company clientele: Employee agrees that, if terminated
               (voluntarily or involuntary), Employee will not, for a period of
               three months, call upon any client of MBSI.

In witness whereof, the parties below have executed this Agreement in Denver,
Colorado, on date indicated above.

Employee


/s/                                                 February 4, 2000
----------------------------                        ----------------
Steven S. Montague Signature                        Date

MBSI

/s/                                                 February 4, 2000
----------------------------                        ----------------
Don E. Montague    Signature                        Date
#### B. Altman & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6460.

Entry No. 743079, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, February 25, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 6, 1946, etc.

(Decided October 24, 1946)

*Marlow & Hines*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*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.
#### Edward FILESTEEL, Plaintiff, and Levi Enemy Boy, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Joseph McCONNEL, Tribal Chairman Fort Belknap Indian Community, Defendant, and Cleo Hamilton, Superintendent, Bureau of Indian Affairs; Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Department of Interior, United States of America, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-36111.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Levi Enemy Boy, Hays, MT, pro se.

George F. Darragh, Jr., Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Levi Enemy Boy appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing the action filed by Enemy Boy and Edward Filesteel, members of the Assiniboine and Gros Ventre Tribes of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, challenging the validity of a secretarial election, which amended the constitution and charter of the Fort Belknap Indian Community. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of an action, *Arrington v. Wong,*237 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The action was brought before the district court under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706 and the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 476. Our review is governed by the APA, which provides that we may not set aside the decision of the agency unless “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

Enemy Boy’s showing is insufficient to establish that the challenged secretarial election was not conducted in accordance with the tribal constitution and applicable statutes and regulations. *See*25 U.S.C. § 476; *see generally*25 C.F.R. § 81.

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.
#### Kim Marie WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RIGGS BANK, N.A., (now known as PNC Bank, N.A.), Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-1391.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 3, 2005.

Kim Marie Wilson, Michael J. Schaengold, pro se.

Before BRYSON, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Riggs Bank, N.A. moves to dismiss Kim Marie Wilson’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Wilson opposes and moves to transfer her appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Wilson sued Riggs Bank in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that Riggs Bank discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court dismissed the complaint as untimely filed and barred by res judicata. Wilson appealed, seeking review by this court. Riggs Bank and Wilson now agree that this court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1295.

*344Thus, we transfer the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Riggs Bank’s motion to dismiss is denied.

(2) Wilson’s motion to transfer is granted. The appeal is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
#### UNITED STATES *of*America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Nicholas E. DEAN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50121.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2005.

Wesley L. Hsu, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, *for*Plaintiff-Appellee.

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

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nicholas E. Dean appeals his 33-month sentence following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud and two counts of access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We remand the sentence for further proceedings consistent with *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *856courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.