alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for MSCCG Trust 2015-ALDR Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-ALDR

 

Per the Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 5, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

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

 

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

 

 

March 1, 2016

/s/ BRIAN SMITH

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
#### HORTON v. STATE.

No. 19517.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 23, 1938.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1938.

W. A. McIntosh, of Gilmer, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is selling intoxicating liquor in. a dry area; the punishment, a fine of' $100.

■Rogers P. Boyd, an inspector of the Texas Liquor Control Board, testified that on the 17th of April, 1937, he bought a pint of whisky from appellant. The testimony of appellant’s witnesses raised the issue of alibi. The proof was sufficient to show that Upshur county was a dry area.

The two bills of exception brought forward are insufficient, in that no evidence is incorporated in said bills to verify the truth of appellant’s objections. A mere statement of a ground of objection in a bill of exception is not a certificate of the judge that the'facts which form the basis of the objection are true; it merely shows that such an objection was made. Branch’s Ann. P.C. § 209; Buchanan v. State, 107 Tex.Cr. R. 559, 298 S.W. 569.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals-has been examined by the judges *395of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Attached to the motion for rehearing filed by the appellant are two documents denominated “Corrected Bills of Exception” which he seeks to have this court ■consider in lieu of the two bills appearing in the transcript which were held to be insufficient to present the matter of which complaint is made. These bills were not filed in the trial court. Hence, they cannot be considered by this court.

The motion for rehearing is overruled. ;■
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PERITUS SOFTWARE SERVICES, INC. FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS<F1>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          46,292
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,014
<ALLOWANCES>                                        45
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,450
<PP&E>                                           4,604
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,118
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,784
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           132
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,938
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,606
<SALES>                                         25,493
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,493
<CGS>                                           10,882
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,046
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (482)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,047
<INCOME-TAX>                                       104
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                943
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                         (15)
<NET-INCOME>                                       928
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
<FN>
<F1> RESTATED - SEE NOTE 5 TO THE UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### DARRELL v. JOE MORRIS MUSIC CO., Inc., et al.

No. 373.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 1, 1940.

David. Bernstein, of New York City (Harold Zucker and Edward Siegel, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Wattenberg & Wattenberg, of New York City (Sidney Wm. Wattenberg, of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.

Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal depends upon whether the judge’s finding that Sherman and Silver did not copy the plaintiff’s composition was “clearly erroneous” under Rule 52 (a), Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The strength of the plaintiff’s case lies in the substantial identity of a se-' quence of eight notes in his song and theirs; and indeed, that hardly does justice to the similarity between the two, because the sequence reappears in each song so frequently as to constitute the greater part of each. This makes the two, when rendered, so much alike to the ear, that the supposed piracy appears almost inevitable. Neverthless, we are not convinced that that conclusion is inescapable. The showing of access was not very persuasive. It is true that Gladys Crane swore that Silver had heard her sing the plaintiff’s song in June, 1928, shortly after its composition, and that her mother somewhat dubiously corroborated her. However, that was seven and a half years before the defendants’ song was composed, a long time for such a theme to hang in Silver’s memory. Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s song had had very scant publicity, for although 1,500 copies had been sold,, and there had been public performances in 1931, 1933, and 1935, nobody fastened Silver with knowledge of any of these. He denied that he had heard it at any time, and while he may have been mistaken, there is no reason á priori to upset, the finding that he was not. We have already said in Arnstein v. Marks Music Corporation, 2 Cir., 82 F.2d 275, that such simple, trite themes as these are likely to. recur spontaneously; indeed the defendants have been able to discover substantial equivalents of that at bar in a number of pieces which appeared earlier than the plaintiff’s, and while this did not. impair the copyright, it serves to fortify the judge’s conclusion that the similarity did not falsify Silver’s denial. It must be remembered that, while there are an enormous number of possible permutations of the musical notes of the scale, only a few are pleasing; and much fewer still suit the-infantile demands of the popular ear. Recurrence is not therefore an inevitable-badge of plagiarism.

We are asked to disregard the-judge’s finding because from what he said: at the trial, he seems to have supposed that anticipation invalidates a copyright. We-are not perfectly sure that he meant this;, but, if he did, we'-■cannot assume that he did not intend to make the finding on-which we rely. If the plaintiff had wished' to rid himself of that handicap, he should: have done so before he appealed; while it stands, it is fatal to his success. We will: allow no counsel fee on the appeal.

Judgment affirmed.
**Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention**

**Quarterly Meeting, July 26, 2013**

**Participant List**

1
SIGTARP 4.1 Table Page 1 of 1 2/4/2015

SIGTARP 4.1 Table

(values in $millions)

Label

PY Agency 

DME

PY 

External 

Contributi

ons DME

PY Agency 

O&M

PY 

External 

Contributi

ons O&M PY Total

CY Agency 

DME

CY 

External 

Contributi

ons DME

CY Agency 

O&M

CY 

External 

Contributi

ons O&M CY Total

BY Agency 

DME

BY 

External 

Contributi

ons DME

BY Agency 

O&M

BY 

External 

Contributi

ons O&M BY Total

% Change 

from CY 

to BY 

Request

Capital Investments Total 0 0 4.06 0 4.06 0 0 4.04 0 4.04 0 0 4.74 0 4.74 17.327

Major IT sub-total

non-Major IT sub-total 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4.7 0 4.7 17.5

IT Total 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4.7 0 4.7 17.5

non-IT Total 0 0 0.06 0 0.06 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 0

SIGTARP Total 0 0 4.06 0 4.06 0 0 4.04 0 4.04 0 0 4.74 0 4.74 17.327

Major IT sub-total

non-Major IT sub-total 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4.7 0 4.7 17.5

IT Total 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4.7 0 4.7 17.5

non-IT Total 0 0 0.06 0 0.06 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 0

SIGTARP Major IT Investments

SIGTARP non-Major IT Investments

SIGTARP IT SYSTEMS AND SUPPORT 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4.7 0 4.7 17.5

015-05-0133 Special Inspector General for the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program

0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4.7 0 4.7 17.5

SIGTARP non-IT Investments

SIGTARP SPECIALIZED SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT 0 0 0.06 0 0.06 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 0

015-05-0133 Special Inspector General for the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program

0 0 0.06 0 0.06 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0 0.04 0 0.04 0

PY 2014 Funding (Estimated Actuals) CY 2015 Funding (President's Budget) BY 2016 Funding (Requested)

DME O&M Total DME O&M Total DME O&M Total % Change 

from CY to 

BY
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30624]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,231]


S.I. Cutting, Inc., Opalocka, Florida; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on October 4, 2000 in response to a petition filed on 
behalf of workers at S.I. Cutting, Incorporation, Opalocka, Florida.
    The petitioning group of workers are subject to an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued (TA-W-
38, 116). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve 
no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 2nd day of November, 2000.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division, Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-30624 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       |
|----------------------------|
| /s/ BOBBY D. O’BRIEN |   |

|               |
|--------------------|
| /s/ JAMES W. BROWN |   |

| Note: | The certification the registrant furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference, except as otherwise expressly stated in such filing. |
|-------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         104,478
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,229
<INVENTORY>                                     12,331
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               201,822
<PP&E>                                       2,276,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                 257,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,425,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          185,193
<BONDS>                                      1,623,752
<COMMON>                                           241
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     353,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,425,610
<SALES>                                        710,266
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               797,298
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  450,725 <F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               182,679 <F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,336
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             105,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,151)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (17,151)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17,151)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.74)
<FN>
<F1> Includes gaming, lodging, food & beverage and other
<F2> Includes general & administration and depreciation & amortization
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal L 107/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.107.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 107 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5427 April 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.107.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 107

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5427 April 2011

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 394/2011 of 20 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 on the list of aircraft operators that performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator as regards the expansion of the Union emission trading scheme to EEA-EFTA countries (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 394/2011 of 20 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 on the list of aircraft operators that performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator as regards the expansion of the Union emission trading scheme to EEA-EFTA countries (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Summary of Performance Objectives and Target Payouts



 Exhibit 10.12 
  
 Summary of Performance Objectives and Target Payouts under the 
 Syntroleum Corporation Annual Incentive Plan 
  
 Under Syntroleum Corporation’s annual incentive plan, employees are eligible to receive a certain number of shares of common stock based on the
achievement of certain company-wide objectives and the individual’s performance rating for the year. The company-wide objectives under the annual incentive plan are presented below: 
  

	 	•	 	defining the Company’s Syntroleum Process-based design for GTL FPSO installations; 

  

	 	•	 	evaluating alternatives for raising funds for acquiring additional stranded gas and liquids projects, and if feasible, implementing a plan to secure funds; 


 

	 	•	 	securing additional capital resources to support general corporate purposes; 

  

	 	•	 	identifying and commencing negotiations on three additional integrated stranded gas and liquids projects; 

  

	 	•	 	evaluating alternatives for catalyst development, including possible participation of a third party; 

  

	 	•	 	implementing a new oil and gas accounting software package and completing the documentation and testing of the internal controls for the new system in compliance with the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act; 

  

	 	•	 	completing the evaluation of the properties we have leased in Central Kansas for production of low BTU gas, and developing a plan to optimize value; and 

  

	 	•	 	continuing the demonstration and documentation of our Syntroleum GTL Technologies. 

  
 The target annual incentive plan award for executive officers is 15% of their base salary earned in 2005. Payouts for
executive officers range from 0% to 150% of his or her target award in accordance with the matrix presented below, depending on the assessment by a committee of outside directors of the satisfaction of the company-wide objectives and the
individual’s performance. 
  

																									
	 	 	Individual Performance Rating

	 
	 	 	1

	 	 	1.5

	 	 	2

	 	 	2.5

	 	 	3

	 	 	3.5

	 	 	4

	 	 	5

	 
	Company
Rating	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	1	 	150	%	 	130	%	 	115	%	 	100	%	 	80	%	 	0	%	 	0	%	 	0	%
	1.5	 	130	%	 	120	%	 	110	%	 	95	%	 	75	%	 	0	%	 	0	%	 	0	%
	2	 	115	%	 	110	%	 	100	%	 	90	%	 	70	%	 	0	%	 	0	%	 	0	%
	2.5	 	100	%	 	90	%	 	80	%	 	70	%	 	60	%	 	0	%	 	0	%	 	0	%
	3	 	80	%	 	70	%	 	60	%	 	50	%	 	40	%	 	0	%	 	0	%	 	0	%
	4	 	0	%	 	0	%	 	0	%	 	0	%	 	0	%	 	0	%	 	0	%	 	0	%
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1668 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 369
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1668

                          [Report No. 115-221]

 To rename a waterway in the State of New York as the ``Joseph Sanford 
                             Jr. Channel''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2017

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                             April 9, 2018

                Reported by Mr. Thune, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To rename a waterway in the State of New York as the ``Joseph Sanford 
                             Jr. Channel''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. JOSEPH SANFORD JR. CHANNEL.

    (a) In General.--The waterway in the State of New York designated 
as the ``Negro Bar Channel'' shall be known and redesignated as the 
``Joseph Sanford Jr. Channel''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the waterway referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Joseph 
Sanford Jr. Channel''.
                                                       Calendar No. 369

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1668

                          [Report No. 115-221]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To rename a waterway in the State of New York as the ``Joseph Sanford 
                             Jr. Channel''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 9, 2018

                       Reported without amendment
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-38,132]

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on September 25, 2000, in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Christina Coat & Suit Corporation, Brooklyn, New York.

The Department of Labor has been unable to locate officials of the subject firm in order to obtain the information necessary to issue a determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of November, 2000.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-30618 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M