alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(logo) **PACIFIC LIFE**

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Per the applicable ServicingAgreement for each of the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Pacific Life Insurance Company, in itsapplicable capacity as listed on Schedule I (“Pacific Life”), hereby certifiesas follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2021 (the “ReportingPeriod”):

 

1. A review of Pacific Life’sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theapplicable Servicing Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision;and

 

2.To the best of suchofficer’s knowledge, based on such review, Pacific Life has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the applicable Servicing Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 1st day of March 2022.

 

PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

 

By:  /s/ L. Lisa Fields

Name: L. Lisa Fields

Title: Assistant VicePresident 

 

 

SCHEDULE I

**Transaction**                                                                                          **Capacity**

** **

DBJPM2016-SFC                                                                                Special Servicer – Westfield San Francisco Centre

Benchmark 2019-B12 MortgageTrust                                                  Special Servicer – Woodlands Mall

Houston Galleria Mall Trust2015-HGLR                                            Special Servicer – Houston Galleria Mall

CSMC2020-WEST                                                                               Special Servicer – The Westchester

WP Glimcher Mall Trust2015-WPG                                                    Special Servicer – Scottsdale Quarter

 

**PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCECOMPANY**

700 Newport Center Drive,Newport Beach, California 92660-6307, Telephone (949) 219-3011
#### BELLEARIL v. STATE.

No. 22003.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 18, 1942.

*782J. Earle Kuntz, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The conviction is for aggravated assault. The punishment assessed is confinement in the county jail for nine months.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged and waived a trial by jury. All matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-05-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         721,309
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,276
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    120,225
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,100,610
<PP&E>                                       6,310,711
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,292,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,816,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,055,720
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,229,195
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,179,395)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,816,068
<SALES>                                      5,249,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,249,137
<CGS>                                        1,582,470
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,546,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,097,291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,429,592)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,429,592)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,429,592)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.46)
        

</TABLE>
**WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****AND THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350**

            Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of PlanVistaCorporation (the “Company”), hereby individually certify, based on our respective knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                                        |   |        |
|----------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Date:   August 12, 2002 |   |   | /s/ Phillip S. Dingle |
|                                        |   |   |    Phillip S. DingleChairman and Chief Executive Officer Date:   August 12, 2002  /s/ Donald W. Schmeling     Donald W. SchmelingChief Financial Officer  |
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE

Mark K. Leeman Gregory F. Zoeller

Logansport , Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden

Deput y Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

_______________________ _______________________________________________________



# In the

Indiana Supreme Court

_________________________________

No. 08S02

- 1306

- CR

- 423

R OBERT B OWEN

, Appellant (Defendant b e low),

v.

S TATE OF I NDIANA

, Appellee (Plaintiff b e low)

.

_________________________________

Appeal from the Carroll Circuit Court

No. 08C01

- 1007

- FB

- 8

The Honorable Donal d E. Currie , Judge

_________________________________

On Petition For Rehearing

_________________________________

October 31 , 2013

Per Cu riam.

Bowen’s sentencing order did not identify the reasons for the consecutive sentences that

were imposed. We rejected the argument in Bowen’s transfer petition that concurrent sentences

were required, but we sustained his argument that a new sentencin g order was and we remanded2

the case with instructions for preparation of a new sentencing order “without a hearing.” Bowen

v. State

, 988 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013). Bowen ’s rehearing petition notes t hat the judge who

originally sentenced him is no longer on the bench and he argues that the current judge cannot

clarify the original sentencing decision. Bowen again requests that the case be remanded with

instructions for imposition of concurrent sentences. We again reject that request, but expand our

reman d instructions as follows:

On remand for a new sentencing order that responds to concerns raised by the

Supreme Court, the trial court may discharge this responsibility by (1) issuing a

new sentencing order without taking any further action, (2) ordering additional

briefing on the sentencing issue and then issuing a new order without holding a

new sentencing hearing, or (3) ordering a new sentencing hearing at which

additional factual submissions are either allowed or disallowed and then issuing

a new orde r based on the presentations of the parties.

Taylor v. State , 840 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. 2006 )

.

Accordingly, we grant rehearing for the limited purpose of modifying the remand

instructions, and otherwise deny the rehearing petition.

All Justices concur.
Case 4:22-cr-00100-O Document 24 Filed 04/13/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 40
Case 4:22-cr-00100-O Document 24 Filed 04/13/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 41
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 18 August 2005         

amending Annex II to Council Decision 79/542/EEC as regards imports of fresh meat from Argentina and Russia

(notified under document number C(2005) 3147)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2005/620/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (1), and in particular Article 8(1) and (4) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Part 1 of Annex II to Decision 79/542/EEC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the 30th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply immediately.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 August 2005.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 18, 23.1.2003, p. 11.

(2)OJ L 146, 14.6.1979, p. 15. Decision as last amended by Commission Decision 2005/234/EC (OJ L 72, 18.3.2005, p. 35).

----

ANNEX

                     ‘ANNEX II

(Fresh meat)

PART 1

List of third countries or parts thereof (*1)

Specific conditions referred to in column 6

----

(*1)  Without prejudice to specific certification requirements provided for by Community agreements with third countries.

(*2)  Not including Kosovo as defined by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999.

(*3)  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; provisional code that does not affect the definitive denomination of the country to be attributed after the conclusion of the negotiations currently taking place in the United Nations.

----
Exhibit 35.3

OFFICERS CERTIFICATE

I, Karen Montbach, a
Managing Director of Citibank, N.A. (the Company), hereby certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2015 (the Agreement), by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities
Inc., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer, Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as special servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as operating advisor, Citibank, N.A., as certificate administrator (the Certificate
Administrator), and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, the following:

1. A review of the Companys activities as
Certificate Administrator during the reporting period ending December 31, 2015 and its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, as of and for the reporting period ending December 31, 2015, the Company has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

This statement is given by the undersigned
as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the undersigneds individual capacity.

Date: February 26, 2016



Citibank, N.A.By:

/s/ Karen MontbachName: Karen MontbachTitle: Managing Director


CGCMT 2015-GC31
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Erik R. Smith, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered December 5, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provision thereof directing the defendant to pay $510 in restitution; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Because the sentencing court made no findings as to the loss or damage caused by the oifense, and the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such a finding, that portion of the judgment directing the payment of restitution must be deleted *(see,*Penal Law § 60.27 [2]).

Since the defendant failed to raise his objections to the adequacy of his plea allocution in the County Court, his claim with respect thereto is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662; *People v Santana,*151 AD2d 518; *People v Maida,*147 AD2d 711; *People v Nicastro,*114 AD2d 979). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00108-CV 

ALLY FINANCIAL, INC. APPELLANT

V.

SANDRA GUTIERREZ AND

HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL

APPELLEES 

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

FROM THE 67TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

ORDER

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

On April 3, 2013, we sent the parties a letter suggesting that this case may 

be appropriate for referral to an alternative dispute resolution procedure. On 

April 1, 2013, appellees filed a written objection to the proposed referral. 

Because we have determined that there is a reasonable basis for the objection, 

we sustain the objection.

The clerk's record is due on or before Monday, May 27, 2013. 
2

The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the 

attorneys of record, the trial court judge, and the trial court clerk. 

DATED April 15, 2013.

PER CURIAM
Draft Agenda 

LV Meeting 

October 13-14, 2011 

NRECA Hosting 

Overview of Issues Raised for Engineering Analysis 

 Requests for Data

o Core Weight vs Efficiency

o Total Weight vs Efficiency

o Engineering Data Template for Bidirectional Data Exchange

o Tool for examining effects of varying steel scenarios

o Simplified Cost/Efficiency Charts

 Changes to Analysis

o Representative Units

o Scaling

 Adjusting at extremes of kVA ranges

 1/3 Phase Equivalency

o Expansion of Scope

 kVA range

 Current Exemptions

o Space Constrained Units

 Open-Ended Questions

o How were CSLs and ELs chosen?

o Compliance of Transformers with Active Cooling

o Compliance of Transformers with Multiple BIL ratings

o Compliance of Transformers with Multiple Primaries/Secondaries
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

ABILENE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

 § 

VS. § CRIMINAL NO. 1:22-CR-008-Y-BU 

 § 

GUY MENA (1) § 

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ADJUDGING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court has reviewed all relevant matters of record in this case, 

including especially (1) the Consent to Administration of Guilty Plea 

and Allocution by United States Magistrate Judge and (2) the Report of 

Action and Recommendation on Plea Before the United States Magistrate 

Judge. No objections to either have been filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, 

the Court concludes that the report and recommendation of the magistrate 

judge on the plea of guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the 

Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and defendant 

is hereby adjudged guilty. The defendant’s sentence will be imposed in 

accordance with the Court’s sentencing scheduling order. 

SIGNED August 8, 2022. 

 

 _________________________________ 

 TERRY R. MEANS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cr-00008-Y-BU Document 68 Filed 08/08/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 124
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANGELO DIVISION 

LUKE T. CHRISMAN, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. No. 6:22-CV-049-H 

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official 

capacity as United States Secretary of 

Defense, et al., 

 Defendants. 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW COUNSEL 

 Before the Court is the defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Zachary A. 

Avallone as Counsel. Dkt. No. 142. The Court grants the motion. Keri Berman will 

continue to serve as counsel for the defendants. Zachary A. Avallone is relieved of his 

obligations and duties to this Court as counsel for the defendants in this case. 

So ordered on October 20, 2023. 

_____________________________________ 

JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:22-cv-00049-H Document 143 Filed 10/20/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 2918
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 11997D/PRO/11

**Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts - Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaties establishing the European Community, the European Coal and Steel and the European Atomic Energy Community - Protocol on the institutions with the prospect of enlargement of the European Union***Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0111*

Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts - Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaties establishing the European Community, the European Coal and Steel and the European Atomic Energy Community - Protocol on the institutions with the prospect of enlargement of the European Union

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities,

Article 1

At the date of entry into force of the first enlargement of the Union, notwithstanding Article 157(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 9(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and Article 126(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the Commission shall comprise one national of each of the Member States, provided that, by that date, the weighting of the votes in the Council has been modified, whether by re-weighting of the votes or by dual majority, in a manner acceptable to all Member States, taking into account all relevant elements, notably compensating those Member States which give up the possibility of nominating a second member of the Commission.

Article 2

At least one year before the membership of the European Union exceeds twenty, a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened in order to carry out a comprehensive review of the provisions of the Treaties on the composition and functioning of the institutions.
Case 4:22-cr-00288-P Document 43 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 72
Case 4:22-cr-00288-P Document 43 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 73
Case 4:22-cr-00288-P Document 43 Filed 10/05/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 74
**. .**  **”**

**I- OFFICE**  OF THE AmORNEY GENERAL OF **TEXAS** / 3 AUSTIN

**Honorable W.**  **X. UsClafB**  OrlninalDSstrlatAttornO~ Willlam8onGountp GwJrgetom, fox88

the An*nbios O@mnon
rteo by the name T m-4. n. Q. st*pp. l rl Dwis) wa8 8

. P. 0. s-pa, It4 lhrt Deer ’ their rather,



### 3tepp is not rolrdeato the *Dais by blooii

but br her m.aMtapp hew husbsnd.
*Qucmtio,a:

Dow the mpl@yZMnt by War. MarshallDavis, 8 &I mmber of the **Board** o? True tees, 0r Mrs. 811.

Q. Btapp,violateArt. k32 of the Penal CObO?*iionorable W. XL &Ml&in, prim 2

ArtloloC32, Penil Coda, prorlde8:

wo 0rf20er of this steta or an7 ofriarr of
av dirtriot, oouatp, olty, preolnet, 8ohool JIB- *riot, or other aualoipal8ubdltlrioa or th28 State or any oirioeror member of any Stett, dl8triot,oountJ,city, 8ehoo1 &irtrlot or other mualoipalboard, Or jutlge ot uy oowt, areeta& by or under authorityof w geaerel or 8pmlal law of thl8 **State,** or **any number**  **of l&o**  Legielatura, &all appoint,or **rob** for or oontizrthe appolntmmt to aryr offloe, pooitfon, olorbhip, **employment** or duty, of w person relatedwithin the 8eoonbdogno by affinityor wlthln the third dogroeby oonsan@nlty to the psnoa 80 appointing or 80 

## voting or to w.other member of p9~r rwh board, tho &islatun, or oourt of whloh 8noh parson

## 80appointingor votinggun bo a pblc her, when 'the

salary,fee8 or oompensatioa of auoh appointeei8 to be pefd for dirsotlror indirectly,out of or Sroa ptiblio iand. or ties of oitiu or any kina or ohuuotar dmt~oe~~r. bet8 1909, p. 65, Aot8 1915, p. 149."

It 18 at 01100

epparuttthab the father of Mar8hall Dar18 (the truoteo)and tho mothor of M-8. 8tapp's h-band hato
a oomsoaanoestorin their father Mr. Davis. Mar8hallDatlr end X. Q. Sta p, boh&drroonde& ho8 a OOIPIYIEwoo&or, are relate6by oo lateral oon8enguialtf. TBe **method ot**  **oomputhg**

**f** thlr da&rem of relatlo&8hlplr to begin with the eomoa aamt8tot and rrokoadownward. The degree t&e tw perronsor the more remote of them Is dtmtant fror the aaomtor lm the degree of klmhlp betrem thoa. T. P. B. B. 00. Y. Overtoa.1 ADD. 0, 8.. Seotlon553.Eoaorablm 1. IL YoOltin, m&e 3

Thus, Manhall Dad8 and Y. cl.stapp aI.0releted In the aeoond degree by roa8anwlnlt~. Degreor of aSrlolt,~

aro eomputcd In the man0 10~er a8 those Or OOQaengulnitq. Ol?inlon Ho. o-2&8 l%IatiStO Say-. Stapp is rolabd 1 the 8an0 tie& br ariinitjr to -11 Davis 88 har hu8ba% ie relate4to him br ooareBgUiI#t~.

Slnoe Har8hallDar18 aa& Y. Q. Stapp hare a ooamea **gmoas~ar** it **is** of no oiwuequtioe that .thOir rerpeetive mother an& Sathsr were ohly half brothor end 8i8ter. 3016. 

### O~in10q HO.

Thl8 18, therefon, to 

### adtime you, and it ir our oplnlon. that Sor the ZWSOn8 8IVW MA thO80 Set forth in Oplnioa8 Hog. Q-2&8 sad O-301
, (aopiaa OS uhioh ati ~enel@ae&) yn. 8tapp. the tbcohOr, is ralat*l~to Nr. Da*is, the trwtoe, in the rooona &egrme by 

### afSlnit;l and her employment i8 forbidden br ml010 C32. or the Poaal Cod..

Tours vary truly