alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|  

 

(logo) ncb

National Cooperative Bank |  

  |
|-------------------------------------------------------|----------------|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

February 26, 2015

 

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. as Depositor

Attn: AJ Sfarra

375 Park Avenue, 2nd Floor

J0127-023

New York, NY 10152

 

RE:   Annual Statement as to Compliance

WFRBS 2014 C22

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

In accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of the Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C22, as an authorized officer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “Co- op Special Servicer”), I hereby certify that:

 

a.  A review of the activities of the Co-op Special Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b.  To the best of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the Co-op Special Servicer has fulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

Please note that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31, 2015.

 

Best regards, 

 

/s/ Karyn Mann

Karyn Mann

Senior Vice President, Investor Compliance

National Cooperative Bank, N.A.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies
that to the best of his knowledge (1) this Annual Report of Corporate Capital Trust II (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Annual Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 and its results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                     
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 17, 2017 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas K. Sittema                                               
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Thomas K. Sittema                                                   
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)               
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: March 17, 2017 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Chirag J. Bhavsar                                               
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chirag J. Bhavsar                                                   
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
and Accounting Officer)
# Sitemap

## March 16, 2020

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2020
- 03
- March 16, 2020

            - NASA Human Exploration Rover Challenge Cancels In-Person Competition; Virtual Awards to be Presented in May
            - NASA Awards Laser Interferometer Space Antenna Telescopes
            - Help NASA Design a Robot to Dig on the Moon
            - NASA Selects Proposals to Study Volatile Stars, Galaxies, Cosmic Collisions
            - Seeking: Materials for the Lunar Environment
            - Seeking: Manufacturing Processes for Lunar Surface Infrastructure
            - The coasts of India and Bangladesh meet at the Bay of Bengal
            - Mount Rainier
            - The well-lit New York/New Jersey metropolitan area
            - The Dead Sea
# Sitemap

## October 16, 2003

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2003
- 10
- October 16, 2003

            - Columbia Accident Investigation Board Biographies
**
**Exhibit 13.2**

**Certification by the Principal Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, In Joon Hwang, Chief Financial Officer of LINE Corporation (the “Company”), hereby 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: 

 
 • 
the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2018, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 
 • 
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein. 

Date: June 28, 2019 

 

By:
 
/s/ In Joon Hwang
 
Name: In Joon Hwang
 
Title: Chief Financial Officer
**
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**157 CAF 10-00589** 
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF DONNA BLACK, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN PAUL WATSON, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

MARY R. HUMPHREY, NEW HARTFORD, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

JOHN G. KOSLOSKY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, UTICA, FOR JONISSA H. AND JAHQUIN H.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (James R. Griffith, J.), entered January 19, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent did not willfully violate an order of the court and suspended petitioner’s visitation with the parties’ children.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, petitioner mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, suspended her visitation with the parties’ children until further order of Family Court and adjudged that respondent father should not be sanctioned for violating a prior order regarding certain letters written by the parties’ children. We reject the contention of the mother that the court erred in modifying the prior order of visitation by suspending her visitation. It is well settled that, “[w]here an order of . . . visitation is entered on stipulation, a court cannot modify that order unless a sufficient change in circumstances—since the time of the stipulation—has been established, and then only where a modification would be in the best interests of the children” ( Matter of Hight v Hight , 19 AD3d 1159, 1160 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Donnelly v Donnelly , 55 AD3d 1373). Here, the parties stipulated to certain testimony at the hearing on their respective petitions, and the stipulated testimony was sufficient, if accepted by the court, to establish the requisite change in circumstances. The prior order required the mother to pay the cost of transporting the father and the children to the correctional facility in which she was incarcerated, and the mother stipulated to the evidence establishing that she failed to do so. In addition, contrary to the contention of the mother, the court’s “determination that it was in the best interests of the subject**-2- 157 CAF 10-00589** 

child[ren] to suspend [her] visitation with [them] has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, we decline to disturb it” ( Matter of Balgley v Cohen , 73 AD3d 1038, 1038; see generally Matter of Cross v Davis

, 298 AD2d 939). We have considered the mother’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
#### UNITED STATES of America and Donald E. Merrill, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service, Petitioners-Appellees, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF the BLACK HILLS, MT. VIEW BRANCH, Respondent, Doyle W. Hester, Intervenor-Appellant.

No. 80-1091.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 23, 1980.

Doyle W. Hester, pro se.

M. Carr Ferguson, Gilbert E. Andrews, Charles E. Brookhart and David I. Pincus, Attys., Tax Div., Appellate Section, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before HEANEY, STEPHENSON and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The government has moved this court to vacate the district court’s stay of its ordered enforcement of a third-party IRS summons directed to the First National Bank. On March 20, 1980, we directed the intervenor-appellant, taxpayer Doyle W. Hester, to show cause why the stay should not be vacated. Our March 20 order noted that, insofar as it then appeared, taxpayer’s motion for stay pending appeal was without factual or legal support. We specifically noted that taxpayer’s assertion that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the IRS summons was frivolous on its face.

Taxpayer, pro se, has supplied us with his appellate brief as a response to our March 20 order. Taxpayer makes no argument that he has made a showing of sufficient justification to preclude enforcement of the summons under *United States v. LaSalle National Bank,*437 U.S. 298, 98 S.Ct. 2357, 57 L.Ed.2d 221 (1978). As indicated in the March 20 order, taxpayer’s arguments that the IRS and the district court lacked authority to issue and to enforce the summons are without merit. *See United States v. Fahey,*614 F.2d 690, 45 A.F.T.R.2d 80-548 (10th Cir. 1980).

*775Because taxpayer has established no likelihood of success on appeal on the merits, the stay pending appeal is hereby vacated.1

1

. In granting the stay pending appeal, the district court relied on language in *United States v. Olson,*604 F.2d 29 (8th Cir. 1980), which indicated that the losing taxpayer in a summons case should receive a limited stay to give him time to seek a stay from this court, lest enforcement of the summons moot the taxpayer’s appeal and “thwart[] taxpayer’s opportunity for redress.” *Id.*at 31 n. 2. The stay may still be vacated before appeal, however, if the taxpayer does not timely seek a stay from this court or if, as here, the government has moved to vacate the stay and the taxpayer has failed to make the required showing to merit a further stay pending appeal.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26069]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-890]

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: 
Correction to Notice of Extension of Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: October 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Pedersen or Rebecca Pandolph, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2769 or (202) 482-3627, respectively.

Correction

    On August 27, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published a notice of extension of time limit for the preliminary 
results of the antidumping new shipper review of wooden bedroom 
furniture from the People's Republic of China for the period January 1, 
2009, through December 31, 2009. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 75 FR 52716 (August 27, 2010) 
(Extension Notice). Subsequent to the publication of the Extension 
Notice, we identified an inadvertent clerical error in the Extension 
Notice.
    Under the ``Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results'' 
section of the Extension Notice, the Department discussed the reasons 
for extending the preliminary results of the new shipper review but 
then incorrectly stated that it was ``extending the time for the 
completion of the final results'' and noted that ``the deadline for 
completion of the final results of these reviews is now no later than 
December 27, 2010.'' The purpose of the instant notice is to notify 
parties of the error and to correct the error.
    The Department has not extended the final results of the new 
shipper review. Rather, the Extension Notice was meant to extend the 
preliminary results of the new shipper review. Thus, the preliminary 
results of the new shipper review are due no later than December 27, 
2010.
    This correction notice is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 751(h) of the Act.

    Dated: October 7, 2010.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-26069 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MULTICARE
COMPANIES, INC. FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,564
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  129,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               173,036
<PP&E>                                         717,685
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,721,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          134,312
<BONDS>                                        751,187
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     746,358
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,721,848
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               185,778
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  141,343
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,784
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,718
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,845
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,487
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,358
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,358
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. VERNON MCIVER.

March 24, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 4.420

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 178744 dated November 18, 2019

 

For Rendering

 

mobile radio telephone communication services in the allocared lelecommunications network

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until November 18, 2024.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated November 18, 2019 No. 673-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 


	
Deputy Head
    	
 
    	
/signature/ A.А.   Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here

Official   seal:

MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS COMMUNICATIONS

OF THE RUSSIAN   FEDERATION

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR   SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE

OF   COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

AND MASS MEDIA

PSRN 1087746736296
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-3765WM

_____________

Donny Rex Easley, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: June 19, 1998

Filed: July 7, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Donny Rex Easley appeals the district court's denial of Easley's 28 U.S.C. §

2255 motion. The district court determined Easley's motion was a second section 2255

motion filed without the permission of this court and granted a certificate of

appealability on this determination.

Before he filed the motion that is the subject of this appeal, Easley sought a

reduction in his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (1994). After the district court

granted this motion and resentenced Easley to the mandatory minimum term of

imprisonment, Easley filed what he styled as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil
-2-

Procedure 59. In this motion, Easley asked the court to revisit his sentence, asserting

the mandatory sentencing statute was unconstitutional. The district court denied the

motion.

We believe Easley's Rule 59 motion was properly construed as a section 2255

motion, and his present motion was properly denied as a second section 2255 motion

filed without the permission of this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994); cf. Bannister

v. Armontrout, 4 F.3d 1434, 1445-56 (8th Cir. 1993) (§ 2254 petitioner's Rule 59(e)

motion raising due process challenge properly construed as second § 2254 petition),

cert. denied, 513 U.S. 960 (1994). Even assuming Easley's Rule 59 motion was not a

section 2255 motion, his challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence is foreclosed

by this court's decision in United States v. Smith, 961 F.2d 1389, 1390 (8th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### MARILYN S. WRABLE, R.N., M.S., C.S. v. COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied. (See 213 *N.J.Super.*347)
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1033 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1033

 Recognizing the importance of access to comprehensive, high-quality, 
           life-affirming medical care for women of all ages.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 26, 2018

Mr. Biggs submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the importance of access to comprehensive, high-quality, 
           life-affirming medical care for women of all ages.

Whereas women of all ages should have access to comprehensive, convenient, 
        compassionate, life-affirming, high-quality medical services;
Whereas all women should feel empowered and equipped with the knowledge to 
        listen to their body and advocate for their health;
Whereas health care for women should emphasize the whole woman, including her 
        physical, mental, and spiritual wellness;
Whereas health care for women should also address the needs of men, families, 
        and communities as they relate to women's health care;
Whereas health care centers should include access to social services that 
        empower women to care for their health;
Whereas Pro Women's Healthcare Centers is a consortium of centers that serves as 
        an example of the high-quality, comprehensive, life-affirming care that 
        women deserve;
Whereas every Pro Women's Healthcare Center-certified clinic has a licensed 
        medical professional;
Whereas every Pro Women's Healthcare Center offers comprehensive health 
        services, including well-woman exams, sexually transmitted disease 
        testing and treatment, breast exams, pregnancy testing, prenatal and 
        pregnancy care, miscarriage support, fertility awareness instruction, 
        infertility consultation, and onsite or nearby, direct referrals for 
        material, emotional, practical, and spiritual resources; and
Whereas Pro Women's Healthcare Centers has certified health care centers 
        nationwide that meet its standards for high-quality, life-affirming care 
        and continue to do so: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses its support for women nationwide to have 
        access to comprehensive, convenient, compassionate, life-
        affirming, high-quality health care; and
            (2) recognizes the high standards established by Pro 
        Women's Healthcare Centers consortium as standards worth 
        implementing nationwide.
                                 <all>
```