alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016246EN.01000501.xml

| 7.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/5

---

Winding-Up Proceedings

Decision to commence winding-up proceeding for ‘Societatea FATA Asigurări S.A.’

(Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

(2016/C 246/06)

| Insurance undertaking | ‘Societatea FATA ASIGURĂRI S.A.’, with its registered office at Șoseaua Pantelimon, No 10-12, Tower Block, Obor Business Centre, Floors 7 and 8, Sector 2, Bucharest, Romania
  J40/2739/23.3.1998, Tax Reference No 10347059, RA-039/10.4.2003 |
| --- | --- |
| Date, entry into force and nature of the decision | 8.6.2016 — Decision 1200 of 8 June 2016 ordering the approval of the voluntary dissolution and winding-up of FATA ASIGURĂRI S.A. |
| Competent authorities | The Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF), with its head office at Splaiul Independenței No 15, Sector 5, Bucharest, Romania |
| Supervisory authority | The Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF), with its head office at Splaiul Independenței No 15, Sector 5, Bucharest, Romania |
| Liquidator appointed | KPMG RESTRUCTURING SPRL |
| Applicable law | Romania
  Government Emergency Order No 93/2012 on the establishment, organisation and functioning of the Financial Supervisory Authority, approved with amendments by Law No 113/2013, as amended;
  Law No 503/2004 on financial recovery, insolvency, voluntary dissolution and winding-up in the insurance business, republished. |

Insurance undertaking

‘Societatea FATA ASIGURĂRI S.A.’, with its registered office at Șoseaua Pantelimon, No 10-12, Tower Block, Obor Business Centre, Floors 7 and 8, Sector 2, Bucharest, Romania

J40/2739/23.3.1998, Tax Reference No 10347059, RA-039/10.4.2003

Date, entry into force and nature of the decision

8.6.2016 — Decision 1200 of 8 June 2016 ordering the approval of the voluntary dissolution and winding-up of FATA ASIGURĂRI S.A.

Competent authorities

The Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF), with its head office at Splaiul Independenței No 15, Sector 5, Bucharest, Romania

Supervisory authority

The Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF), with its head office at Splaiul Independenței No 15, Sector 5, Bucharest, Romania

Liquidator appointed

KPMG RESTRUCTURING SPRL

Applicable law

Romania

Government Emergency Order No 93/2012 on the establishment, organisation and functioning of the Financial Supervisory Authority, approved with amendments by Law No 113/2013, as amended;

Law No 503/2004 on financial recovery, insolvency, voluntary dissolution and winding-up in the insurance business, republished.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DONNA JOHNSTONE,

Petitioner

v.

ROBERT JOHNSTONE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 132 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Al lowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs February 4, 2003

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JACKIE LEE GRAY

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Maury County

No. 11992; 11993; 12096 Robert L. Jones, Judge

No. M2002-00802-CCA-R3-CD - Filed September 4, 2003

On January 28, 2002, the appellant, Jackie Lee Gray, pleaded guilty to two counts of misdemeanor

assault, one count of vandalism under $500, one count of public intoxication, and one count of

resisting arrest. The judgments in the technical record reflect that the appellant was ordered to serve

an effective sentence of six months incarcerated and six months on probation for his convictions.

On August 6, 2002, this court granted the appellant’s motion to late-file a transcript of the evidence.

On September 26, 2002, the Circuit Court of Maury County had not yet received the transcript and

therefore sent the technical record to the court. The appellant now brings this appeal claiming that

the trial court improperly ordered him to serve a portion of his sentence in jail. Because the

transcript of the sentencing hearing is not before this Court we have no choice but to affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court is Affirmed.

JERRY L. SMITH, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID H. WELLES and NORMA

MCGEE OGLE, JJ., joined.

William C. Barnes, Jr., Columbia, Tennessee, for appellant, Jackie Lee Gray.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Kim R. Helper, Assistant Attorney General; and

Mike Bottoms, District Attorney General, for appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

Analysis

In its brief the State notes that the appellant discusses the facts of the case and includes

citations to the record. However, despite this Court’s order granting the appellant’s motion to latefile the transcript, it is not included in this record. Therefore, because the record of the dispositive

issues is incomplete, we must presume that the trial court’s decision is proper.
-2-

When an appellant challenges his sentence, this Court should conduct a de novo review with

a presumption of correctness. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(d). Because there is no transcript

included in the record “the proper course of action is for the Court to sua sponte presume that the

trial court’s decision is correct when the record is insufficient to determine otherwise.” State v.

Kern, 996 S.W.2d 842 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999); State v. Richardson, 875 S.W.2d 671, 674 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 1993); State v. Cooper, 736 S.W.2d 125, 131 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

___________________________________ 

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
*After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This

Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be

cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 24 2001

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD DWAYNE ASHFORD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN E. HAHN, Warden; R. E.

HOLTON, Associate Warden;

E. HANSEN, Captain; ROBERT

WALKER, S.I.A.; and R. J.

ZAMPERELLI, Unit Manager,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-1264

(D.C. No. 01-Z-375)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before EBEL, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-appellant Edward D. Ashford challenges the district court’s

dismissal of his complaint based on an alleged violation of his right of access to

the courts. The complaint alleged that, while Mr. Ashford was incarcerated at a
- 2 -

federal prison, his legal papers were seized and he was placed in administrative

detention during a prison investigation. The deprivation of his legal papers

allegedly caused Mr. Ashford to miss a deadline for filing a second supplemental

petition for certiorari with the Maryland Court of Appeals. The district court

dismissed the complaint as legally frivolous.

Before the district court, Mr. Ashford filed a “Motion to Entertain

Complaint,” explaining why his exhaustion of the Bureau of Prisons’

administrative grievance procedure had been rendered impossible. The district

court, relying on Garrett v. Hawk, 127 F.3d 1263, 1267 (10th Cir. 1997), ruled

that the motion was unnecessary because the complaint sought only money

damages, which are unavailable through the prison grievance procedures. Garrett

has since been disapproved by the Supreme Court, which held that exhaustion is

required, regardless of the relief offered by the administrative procedures. Booth

v. Churner, 121 S. Ct. 1819, 1825 (2001). Before reaching the merits, it must be

determined whether Mr. Ashford has satisfied the exhaustion requirements.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is VACATED and this case is

REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order. Mr.

Ashford’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge
Exhibit 35.4



LOGO

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Year Ended December 31, 2017

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.,

Series 2017-CD5

Pursuant to Section 3.01
(37) of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the Servicing Agreement), I hereby attest that:



| | i. | A review of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the period has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ii. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughout the period and no default by the
Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreement has occurred and is continuing.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Berkadia,



LOGO

Mark E. McCool

President

February 10, 2018

Inv. 228 Lib. A
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

** **

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

  

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as ofNovember 1, 2017, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES,INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer,LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,as Certificate Administrator, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asTrustee and TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS LLC, as Operating Advisor and as AssetRepresentations Reviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2017-C41 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of theactivities of the Master Servicer during the period from November 1, 2017through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”),  and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

 

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

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:45 PM

To: Wayland, Robertj; Adamantiades, Mikhail
Cc: Stenhouse, Jeb; Culligan, Kevin Subject: RE: Quick Turnaround Request from Cortney

Thanks!

From: Wayland, Robertj [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:44 PM

To: Higgins, Cortney; Adamantiades, Mikhail
Cc: Stenhouse, Jeb; Culligan, Kevin Subject: RE: Quick Turnaround Request from Cortney

Cortney –

Yes, BB4 information is correct.

thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Mail Code D243-01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Office: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document - FOIA Exempt *************************************From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:40 PM

To: Adamantiades, Mikhail; Wayland, Robertj
Cc: Stenhouse, Jeb; Culligan, Kevin Subject: RE: Quick Turnaround Request from Cortney

Hi all,

The description of #4 Is still accurate, right? Below is what was in your initial briefing slides?

Thanks, Cortney



## Technology/Building Block Option 1 Option 2

1. Heat rate improvement (Avg. Reduction for Coal) 6% 4%

2. Dispatch to existing and under-construction NGCC Utilization of NGCC up to 70% capacity factor Utilization of NGCC up to 65% capacity factor

3. Dispatch to new clean electric generation Includes new nuclear generation under construction, moderate deployment of new renewable generation, and continued use of existing nuclear generation

4. Demand-side Energy Efficiency (% reduction in demand from BAU MWh sales) 

## 3.0% / 10.7% (2020 / 2030) 2.4% / 5.2% (2020 / 2025)
No. 11-7898.

#### Roberto Perez-Rodriguez, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1172, 132 S. Ct. 1130,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1006,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 628.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 11-6849.

#### Oscar Avilez, Petitioner v. Florida.

565 U.S. 1096, 132 S. Ct. 851,

181 L. Ed. 2d 555,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8953.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, denied.

Same case below, 50 So. 3d 1189.
GEORGE ALLEN 

Is being inducted into the Defense Industrial Supply Center Hall of Fame this twentieth day of 

January 1999 for his extraordinary leadership and support as the Deputy Commander and for his 

continuous outstanding mission support throughout his tenure at DISC from 1982 to 1995. 

Mr. Allen was the Center’s first Competition Advocate. In a span of six months of this program, 

competition rate was increased by 15 percent and provided a savings of almost $30 million in its 

first year. Under his direction, a concept for automating the processing of recommended buys 

through the use of computer terminals was developed. This concept, ultimately called the 

Automated Inventory Management System (AIMS), was designed to reduce and prioritize Supply 

Operations workload, reduce creation of duplicate procurement requests, decrease administrative 

lead time and improve supply effectiveness. 

Hall of Fame Inductees Page 1 of 1

https://www.troopsupport.dla.mil/about_us/gallen.htm 1/21/2016
No. 11-7228.

#### Luis Gonzalez, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1098, 132 S. Ct. 858,

181 L. Ed. 2d 559,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8898.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 433 Fed. Appx. 24.
Date: 16 April 2020

NSN: 8925-01-493-4684

5 June 2020 ***********************

NSN: 8925-01-493-4684 (RPS) MONOGRAPH NO. M8O

 ***********************

Item: Pan Coated candy, Disks, Peanut butter, plain (Type IV, Style A, Flavor 4)

Document: CID A-A-20177F, Candy and Chocolate Confections and PKG & QAP

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 240 Component Classification: Primary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

The pan coated candy shall have a candy shell with a high gloss and the colors shall be 

vibrant (high chroma) and uniform (not mottled) in hue. Disks shall resemble a double 

convex lens in shape. The plain disks must have a peanut butter center covered with a 

thin candy shell. The disks shall be uniformly shaped and consist of at least three 

different colors.

Odor: Sweet, peanut butter.

Flavor: Sweet exterior coating with peanut butter center.

Texture: Crunchy exterior with a firm, smooth center.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Hairline cracking, darkening, mottling and dulling of color, interior darkening.

Odor: Oxidative rancidity, low peanut odor.

Flavor: Rancid peanut, low peanut flavor.

Texture: Moderate hardening of coating and toughening of interior to the point of imparting 

discomfort to the user when chewing.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

NA
Date: 16 April 2020

NSN: 8925-01-493-4684

Special Notes

NA
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of theglobe.com, inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward A. Cespedes,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 results of operations of the Company.




*Date:
                May 11, 2007*
            By:
            /s/*Edward
                A. Cespedes**Edward
                A. Cespedes**Chief
                Financial Officer*




48
RUST 

Table IV, Insignificant defect – Rust confined to top or bottom 

seam or rust that can be removed with a soft cloth is not scored 

a defect.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

NICHOLAS CUTRONE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-35

[May 7, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Sherwood Bauer, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 15-1331-CFAXMX.

Jason T. Forman of Law Offices of Jason T. Forman, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1387

ROBERT V. RODGERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PREFERRED CAROLINAS REALTY, INC.; JAMES E. ALLEN, JR.; JIM 

ALLEN GROUP, INC.; HARRY JAMES THORPE,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

RANDALL EICHORN; LISA EICHORN; W. SIDNEY ALDRIDGE; NICHOLLS 

& CRAMPTON, PA,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:13-cv-00764-FL)

Submitted: January 27, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

R. Hayes Hofler, III, HAYES HOFLER, PA, Durham, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Bryan T. Simpson, Natalia K. Isenberg, TEAGUE, 

CAMPBELL, DENNIS & GORHAM, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Robert V. Rodgers appeals from the district court’s order 

sua sponte granting reconsideration of a prior order and 

entering summary judgment in favor of the Defendants as to all 

of Rodgers’ claims. We have reviewed the record included on 

appeal, including the district court’s opinions, and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. In re Rodgers (Rodgers v. Preferred 

Carolinas Realty, Inc.), No. 5:13-cv-00764-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 

2016). 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.

AFFIRMED
****Exhibit 34.2****

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (Ernst & Young LLP) 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association 

We have examined management’s****assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment ofCompliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S.Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2018, except forservicing criteria Items 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(v)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to theservicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance withthe servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the AmericanInstitute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of lessthan all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to ourtests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient andappropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance withthe servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and forthe year ended March 31, 2018, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Minneapolis,Minnesota 

May 31, 2018