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 WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-C23 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C23

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014 (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.

 

 

February 25, 2016

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 133

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the terrorist bombing in

the Jerusalem market on July 30, 1997.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 30, 1997

Mr. LANTOS (for himself, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. GEPHARDT, Mr. HAMILTON, Mr.

ACKERMAN, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DEUTSCH,

Mr. ENGEL, Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. FROST, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. NADLER, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr.

SANDERS, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. WELLER, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. YATES, Mr.

WAXMAN, Mr. HORN, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, and Mr. SHERMAN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the terrorist

bombing in the Jerusalem market on July 30, 1997.

Whereas on July 30, 1997, two terrorist bombs exploded almost simultaneously in the open market in Jerusalem

killing at least 14 people and wounding more than 150

others, and

Whereas this attack is a violent and vicious assault against

the peace process and against citizens of Israel: Now,

therefore, be it
2

HCON 133 IH

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) expresses the deep condolences of the Con4 gress and the American people to the families of the

5 victims and to the people of Israel for the loss of life

6 and the serious injuries that have been suffered in

7 the terrorist bombing in the Jerusalem market and

8 expresses the solidarity of the American people with

9 the people of Israel in the face of this tragic and

10 senseless act;

11 (2) reaffirms the determination of the Congress

12 to join with the government of Israel in fighting

13 against international terrorism;

14 (3) urges Yassir Arafat and officials of the Pal15 estinian Authority to undertake immediately un16 equivocal action to bring to justice leaders of terror17 ist organizations and extremist groups and to elimi18 nate all weapons and explosives in the hands of such

19 groups;

20 (4) reaffirms the commitment of the Congress

21 of the United States to the peace process in the

22 Middle East and urges all parties to work together

23 to bring lasting peace and security without violence

24 and terrorism to that region; and
3

HCON 133 IH

1 (5) urges the President and appropriate Execu2 tive agencies to provide all appropriate assistance to

3 the government of Israel to provide medical and

4 other assistance to the victims of this terrorist act,

5 to being to justice the terrorist leaders behind this

6 and similar acts of violence, and to work to prevent

7 such terrorist acts in the future.

Æ
February 9 , 2010

Ms. Lisa Jackson U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency Ben Franklin Post Office P.O. Box 862 Washington, DC 2004 4 Attn: Chemical Right - to - Know Program Subject: Submission of documents for 2,3 - pyridinedicarboxylic acid (CAS No. 89 - 00 - 9) under

the EHPV Challenge Progra m, via electronic submission to EHPV - Program Submissions@epa.gov Exponent Project No. 1006827.000 Dear Administrator Jackson : On beha lf of BASF Corporation, we are submitting the attached revised test plan and revised robust summaries for 2,3 - pyridinedicarboxylic acid (CAS No. 89 - 00 - 9). The submission, made under the U.S. EPA’s Extended High Production Volume Chemical Challenge Progra m, consists of a revised test plan and revised robust summaries for 2,3 - pyridinedicarboxylic acid and an analog, 2,3 - pyridinedicarboxylic acid, 5 - ethyl (CAS No. 102268 - 15 - 5). Use and exposure information is contained in the test plan as well as the robust summaries. This revision updates our original submission of February 13, 2009. The documents are being submitted in electronic format (Adobe Acrobat pdf files). In addition, we have completed entry of the robust summaries into HPVIS. If you have difficu lty with the electronic submission or require additional information, please contact me, as BASF’s representative, by phone (919 - 228 - 6480) or e - mail ( jstaveley@exponent.com ).

1006827.000Ms. Lisa Jackson

February 9 , 2011

1006827.000 Sincerely,

Jane P. Staveley, M.S.P.H. Senior Managing Scientist Enclosures ( 2 ) :  Revised test plan for 2,3 - pyridinedicarboxylic acid (pdf)  Robust summaries for 2,3 - pyridinedicarboxylic acid and 2,3 - pyridinedicarboxylic acid, 5 - ethyl cc: Dr. Ralph Parod, BASF Co rporation Dr. David Cortes, BASF Corporation Ms. Christina Franz , American Chemistry C o uncil
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,332
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,507
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    125,410
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          34,385
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            34,621
<LOANS>                                        191,176
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 382,969
<DEPOSITS>                                     248,577
<SHORT-TERM>                                    90,612
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,853
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 382,969
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,759
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,679
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   183
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,621
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,381
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,765
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,856
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       75
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   3
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,130
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,130
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       667
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.04
<LOANS-NON>                                        720
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    459
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,302
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,376
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,376
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Herber Ortiz GONZALEZ, AKA Jesus Archila-Cisneros, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-71680

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 22, 2017

Carol Carvajal, Attorney, Law Office of Carol Carvajal, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner

Aimee J. Carmichael, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ****

Herber Ortiz Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of *363removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ortiz Gonzalez’s asylum claim because Ortiz Gonzalez failed to establish that a protected ground was or would be one central reason for the harm he suffered and fears. *See Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch,*849 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 2016) (identifying three-factor standard to determine whether retaliation for whistleblow-ing amounts to persecution on account of a political opinion). Thus, his asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ortiz Gonzalez’s CAT claim because he did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. *See Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

As to Ortiz Gonzalez’s withholding of removal claim, the BIA did not have the benefit of *Barajas-Romero v. Lynch,*846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (“one central reason” standard applies to asylum but not withholding of removal), and denied based on the “one central reason” standard. Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Ortiz Gonzalez’s withholding of removal claim for reconsideration of this claim consistent with this disposition. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

We deny Ortiz Gonzalez’s request for a stay of proceedings (Docket Entry No. 16).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

November 29, 2012

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0885

www.regulations.gov

Errata Sheet for the Pyrethrins Summary Document (12/13/2011)

In the version of the pyrethrins Summary Document that was posted in the public docket, EPA 

indicated under Hazard Characterization, second bullet on page 17 that “Pyrethrins were 

classified as “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenicity, but Not Sufficient to Assess Human 

Carcinogenic Potential” because there was suggestive evidence that pyrethrins are carcinogenic 

based on weight-of-the-evidence considerations.” This was an error on EPA’s part and was 

noted in EPA’s response to comments section on page 7 of the pyrethrins Final Work Plan 

(5/18/2012).

The correction classification for the pyrethrins is “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans at 

doses that do not cause a mitogenic response in the liver/cell proliferation.” This is indicated in 

the EPA HED report “PYRETHRINS: Fourth Report of the Cancer Assessment Review 

Committee”, TXR No.: 0054822, dated February 14, 2008.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3133

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Justin Dwight Sholley-Gonzalez

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

 ____________

 Submitted: March 2, 2022

Filed: March 7, 2022

[Published]

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Justin Sholley-Gonzalez appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

following this court’s remand for resentencing on his conviction for firearm offenses. 

1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for

the Southern District of Iowa.
On appeal, Sholley-Gonzalez argues that the district court erred in calculating his

Guidelines range and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in

finding that Sholley-Gonzalez was not entitled to a reduction for possessing the

ammunition for a lawful sporting purpose, see U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2) (if the

defendant possessed all ammunition and firearms solely for lawful sporting purposes

or collection, decrease the offense level to 6); United States v. Lussier, 423 F.3d 838,

842-43 (8th Cir. 2005) (application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo and factual

findings are reviewed for clear error; it is defendant’s burden to show he possessed

all ammunition and firearms solely for lawful sporting purposes); and we note that

any error in the court’s determination was harmless in any event, as the court stated

it would have given Sholley-Gonzalez the same sentence even if it had found the

reduction applied, see United States v. Shuler, 598 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 2010)

(procedural errors in determining advisory Guidelines range are subject to harmless

error analysis); United States v. Spikes, 543 F.3d 1021, 1025-26 (8th Cir. 2008)

(where it is clear that sentencing court would have imposed same sentence regardless

of whether appellant’s argument for lower Guidelines range ultimately prevailed,

there can be no reversible error in sentence).

We also conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively

unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for

substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of

discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight

to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing

appropriate factors); see also United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th

Cir. 2010) (upward variance was reasonable where court made individualized

assessment based on facts presented).

-2-
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-3-
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0888 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0888

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 888/2003 of 22 May 2003 fixing the quantities which may be transferred to another group of varieties in Germany, Spain and Portugal under the guarantee threshold for the 2003 harvest in the raw tobacco sector **

*
Official Journal L 127 , 23/05/2003 P. 0019 - 0020 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 888/2003

of 22 May 2003

fixing the quantities which may be transferred to another group of varieties in Germany, Spain and Portugal under the guarantee threshold for the 2003 harvest in the raw tobacco sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 546/2002(2), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 introduced production quotas for the different groups of varieties of tobacco. The individual quotas are divided among producers on the basis of the guarantee thresholds for the 2003 harvest laid down in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 546/2002 of 25 March 2002 fixing the premiums and guarantee thresholds for leaf tobacco by variety group and Member State for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 harvests and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92. Pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92, the Commission may authorise Member States to transfer parts of their guarantee threshold quantities between groups of varieties provided that such transfers do not give rise to additional costs for the EAGGF and do not involve any increase in Member States' overall guarantee threshold allocations.

(2) Since these conditions have been met, transfers should be authorised in the Member States which have made application to do so.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Tobacco,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 2003 harvest, before the deadline for the conclusion of cultivation contracts laid down in Article 10(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/98(3), Member States are hereby authorised to transfer quantities from one group of varieties to another in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 May 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 70.

(2) OJ L 84, 28.3.2002, p. 4.

(3) OJ L 358, 31.12.1998, p. 17.

ANNEX

Guarantee threshold quantities which each Member State is authorised to transfer from one group of varieties to another

>TABLE>
EX-10.1


 Exhibit 10.1 

Execution Version 

December 3, 2017 
 Osteon Holdings, L.P.

 c/o TPG Global, LLC 
 301 Commerce Street 

Suite 3300 
 Fort Worth, TX 76102 

 

	Re:	First Amendment to Equity Commitment Letter 

 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Reference is made to the letter agreement dated as of October 22, 2017 (the “Equity Commitment Letter”), among TPG
Partners VII, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Fund”), Osteon Holdings, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Parent”), and Exactech, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”), which
was executed and delivered in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 22, 2017, as amended, by and among Parent, Osteon Merger Sub, Inc., a Florida corporation, and the Company. 

The parties hereto hereby agree that the Equity Commitment Letter is amended as follows: 

(a) Section 1 of the Equity Commitment Letter is hereby amended by deleting the number: 

“$624,704,000” 
 and
replacing such number with: 
 “$737,057,000”. 

Except as expressly amended hereby, the Equity Commitment Letter is in all respects ratified and confirmed and all the terms, conditions, and
provisions thereof shall remain in full force and effect. This first amendment to the Equity Commitment Letter (this “Amendment”) is limited precisely as written and shall not be deemed to be an amendment to any other term or condition of
the Equity Commitment Letter or any of the documents referred to therein. This Amendment shall form a part of the Equity Commitment Letter for all purposes, and each party thereto and hereto shall be bound hereby. From and after the execution of
this Amendment by the parties hereto, any reference to the Equity Commitment Letter shall be deemed a reference to the Equity Commitment Letter as amended hereby. 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 






 
					
	Very truly yours,
	
	TPG PARTNERS VII, L.P.
	
	By: TPG Genpar VII, L.P., its general partner
	
	By: TPG Genpar VII Advisors, LLC, its general partner
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Michael LaGatta

		 	Name:	 	Michael LaGatta
		 	Title:	 	Vice President








 Accepted and Agreed to as 

of the date first written above: 
  

			
	OSTEON HOLDINGS, L.P.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael LaGatta

	Name:	 	Michael LaGatta
	Title:	 	Vice President







 Accepted and Agreed to as 

of the date first written above: 
  

			
	EXACTECH, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ William Petty

	Name:	 	William Petty
	Title:	 	Executive Chairman
#### Crystal Gail MANGUM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Erik A. HOOKS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7342

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Decided: February 20, 2018

Crystal Gail Mangum, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Crystal Gail Mangum seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mangum has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Mangum’s motion for release, deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *273materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*