alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42365-42366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18968]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


Submission for OMB Review

AGENCY: Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies 
are required to publish a Notice in the Federal Register notifying the 
public that the agency has prepared an information collection for OMB 
review and approval and has requested public review and comment on the 
submission. Comments are being solicited on the need for the 
information; the accuracy of the Agency's burden estimate; the quality, 
practical utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 
ways to minimize reporting the burden, including automated collected 
techniques and uses of other forms of technology.
    Minor revisions are being made to improve the clarity of the 
questions and to allow the optional submission of additional 
information.

DATES:  Comments must be received within 60 calendar-days of 
publication of this Notice.

ADDRESSES: Direct comments and requests for copies of the subject form 
to the Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, Records Manager, 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20527.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Agency Submitting Officer: James 
Bobbitt, Records Manager, (202) 336-8558.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Summary Form Under Review

    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved information 
collection.
    Title: Aligned Capital Investee Opt-In.
    Form Number: OPIC-255.
    Frequency of Use: Once per investor per project.
    Type of Respondents: Business or other institution.
    Standard Industrial Classification Codes: All.
    Description of Affected Public: Companies investing overseas.
    Reporting Hours: 37.5 hours (.5 hours per project).
    Number of Responses: 75 per year.
    Federal Cost: $0.
    Authority for Information Collection: Sections 231 and 239(d) of 
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.
    Abstract (Needs and Uses): The Aligned Capital Investee Opt-In is a 
document used by companies seeking investments or grant funding to 
place their information into OPIC's Aligned Capital Program. The 
Aligned Capital Program is a pilot program that OPIC has designed to 
align development

[[Page 42366]]

finance with other capital, including philanthropic, socially 
responsible and impact investment, to enable effective deployment of 
that capital towards projects in the countries and sectors in which 
OPIC works.

    Dated: September 1, 2017.
Nichole Skoyles,
Administrative Counsel, Administrative Affairs, Department of Legal 
Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2017-18968 Filed 9-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 35.6



|     |  |  |  |                                                                                                                       
|---- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | Corporate Trust Services
MAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045 
Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

390 Greenwich Street, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10013

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator for the Empire Hotel & Retail Companion Loan
(in such capacities, Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the reporting period):



| | (a) | A review of Wells Fargos activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the Servicing Agreement(s)) has been made
under my supervision; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule
B.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               
|---------------
|March 26, 2015 
|               
|\s\ Brian Smith
|Brian Smith    
|Vice President 



---

To: Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

Schedule A

List of
Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2013 by and among GS MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION
II, Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC., Operating Advisor WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Certificate Administrator and U.S. BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Trustee relating to the series, GSMC 2013-GC10 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction , relating to the Empire Hotel & Retail Companion Loan, a Pari passu portion of which is included in the Series
CGCMT 2013-GCJ11 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.



---

To: Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

Schedule B

Material
Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

Not Applicable
#### Rose SLOANE, Plaintiff, v. Sidney LAND and Sidney Land, Inc., Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

June 25, 1954.

Paskus, Gordon & Hyman, New York City, for plaintiff.

Engelman & Hart, New York City, for defendants.

NOONAN, District Judge.

The plaintiff in this action has moved pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules *243of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., for leave to amend her claim for relief in her first cause of action and, pursuant to Rule 56, for summary judgment on the first cause of action as amended.

Because there is no opposition to the amendment, and further because there is no reason to refuse permission to amend the complaint in this respect, that portion of her motion made pursuant to Rule 15 is granted.

Plaintiff states that, even if there may be a dispute about the entire amount owed as alleged in her first cause of action, there is no dispute as to a portion of that amount, and it is at least as to that portion that she seeks summary judgment. The plaintiff alleges, and the corporate defendant admits, that the corporate defendant owes the plaintiff the amount of $2,178.35 (more, according to the plaintiff; only that amount, according to the defendant).

 Certainly in view of the dispute concerning the amount of $542.89, there can be no summary judgment for this amount, for, where there is. any factual controversy, it is the clearly established practice in this circuit to deny summary judgment. Where, as here, the credibility of the plaintiff has been put in issue, and since many of the books and records upon which she bases her claims were kept by her in her capacity as an employee, summary judgment for any amount in excess of the $2,178.35 can not properly be granted. Arnstein v. Porter, 2 Cir., 154 F.2d 464.

As to the $2,178.35, this court is without authority to grant the form of relief sought by the plaintiff. See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Edit., 2307 and 2308, and the cases cited therein at footnote 56.

Pursuant to Rule 56(d), however, this court hereby finds that the amount of $2,178.35 is owing to the plaintiff; and the other amounts involved are still in controversy.

Settle order.
#### Charles E. HARVEY v. EIMCO CORPORATION.

Civ. A. No. 28708.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 26, 1961.

See also 28 P.R.D. 381.

Beasley & Ornsteen, by James E. Beasley, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, by Bernard M. Borish, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

WOOD, District Judge.

The defendant’s interrogatories seek very complete information as to the existence and whereabouts of reports, statements, and opinions obtained by plaintiff in preparation for trial. Defendant seeks information as to whether such documents exist, and if they do exist, then defendant asks for information as to who made them, when they were made, who currently has them in his possession, etc.

The plaintiff objects to all of these interrogatories on the ground that they are an invasion of his “work product.” Plaintiff contends that this information may not be obtained as of right but only on a showing of good cause.

This objection is without merit. Statements, opinions, and reports of witnesses or of experts which are gathered by an attorney in preparation for trial are free from discovery (absent a showing of good cause) by an adverse party *as far as the content of such state*
      *381
      *ments, opinions, or reports is concerned.*The law is clear that interrogatories may not be used to obtain a summary or résumé of the contents of such documents. However, the defendant’s interrogatories in the case at bar do not ask for the contents, or a résumé or summary of the contents, of the documents obtained by plaintiff in preparation for trial.1 Therefore, we consider the defendant’s interrogatories perfectly proper, and we enter the following Order:

Order

And now, to wit, this 26th day of May, 1961, the plaintiff is hereby Ordered to answer defendant’s interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, 24, 25, 30, 31 and 33. So much of interrogatories Nos. 26 and 57 as call for “the substance” of what plaintiff was told need not be answered, and plaintiff’s objections thereto are sustained. However, the remainder of interrogatories Nos. 26 and 57 are hereby directed to be answered by plaintiff.

. In two minor instances the defendant has asked for a nortion of the contents of sacn documents, and we accordingly sustain the plaintiff’s objections in those two instances.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at March 31, 1998 (Unaudited) and the Statement of Operations
for the Three Months Ended March 31, 1998 (Unaudited) and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,447
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,995
<PP&E>                                       2,244,628
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,732,479
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 571,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     571,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   571,144
<SALES>                                         27,615
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,015
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,977
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,962)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,962)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,962)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.19)
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Annunziata and Overton Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

ROBERT BEATTY MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2322-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON APRIL 29, 1997 NARRICOT INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION Richard E. Railey, Jr. (Railey & Railey, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Arthur T. Aylward (Midkiff & Hiner, P.C., on brief), for appellees.

Robert Beatty appeals from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission that found that an injury he suffered while working for Narricot Industries, Inc. did not arise out of his employment. Finding credible evidence in the record to support the commission’s decision, we affirm. The parties are fully conversant with the record in the cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. Guided by well established principles, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing

below. See Crisp v. Brown's Tysons Corner Dodge, Inc. , 1 Va. App. 503, 504, 339 S.E.2d 916, 916 (1986). The claimant bears the burden of proving his injury arose out of his employment.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 See Marketing Profiles, Inc. v. Hill , 17 Va. App. 431, 433, 437 S.E.2d 727, 729 (1993). The issue of whether an injury arose out of employment is a mixed question of law and fact, reviewable on appeal. See Southside Training Center v. Shell , 20 Va. App. 199, 202, 455 S.E.2d 761, 763 (1995). However, the commission's underlying findings of fact will not be disturbed on review if credible evidence supports them. See Hill , 17 Va. App. at 435, 437 S.E.2d at 729-30; Ogden Allied Aviation v. Shuck , 17 Va. App. 53, 55, 434 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1993). Beatty originally told his employer, his doctors, and the insurance adjuster that his injury occurred when he twisted in his seat at work. For the first time at the deputy commissioner’s hearing, Beatty testified that the injury occurred as he rode over a bump. As the fact finder, the commission was entitled to resolve this factual discrepancy as to how the injury occurred, see Grove v. Allied Signal, Inc. , 15 Va. App. 17, 19, 421 S.E.2d 32, 33 (1992), and find that Beatty’s accident did in fact occur as he was twisting. Credible evidence supports this

determination. Injuries from simple acts such as walking, bending, turning, or, in this case, twisting, do not arise out of the employment absent some condition of the employment which contributes to the injury. See County of Chesterfield v. Johnson , 237 Va. 180, 186, 376 S.E.2d 73, 76 (1989). The evidence does not support the existence of such a condition of employment.3 Narricot Industries cross-appeals, contending that the commission erred in finding that the injury occurred while in the course of Beatty’s employment. Because our holding above disposes of this matter completely, we need not address the cross-appeal. Accordingly, the commission's decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### Sherry Lynn England v. May Bernadette Jarrett

May 30, 2002

Case No. LM-2611-1

BY JUDGE MELVIN R. HUGHES, JR.

Although admitting that venue does not lie in this court, plaintiff asserts that the case should be retained here under the provisions of Va. Code § 8.01-265 for good cause for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. Defendant opposes, stating that Va. Code § 8.01-265 does not permit the court to retain a case when there is no venue. See *Norfolk and Western Ry. v. Williams,*239 Va. 390, 392-93 (1990).

The case involves a personal injury claim arising out of an automobile accident which occurred in Caroline County. According to plaintiff, the facts and circumstances make the defendant’s liability clear as the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding as a passenger sustained an impact from the rear. This, according to plaintiff, would obviate the need to have the bulk of witnesses, who live in the Ruther Glen and Fredericksburg areas, from having to attend the trial. This would leave plaintiff, who resides in Ruther Glen, and her doctors who all have offices here as the only witnesses necessary for trial. Defendant did not concede the point on liability but rather asserts that the time and distance for all the witnesses need be considered in addition to the objection to retaining the case in an improper forum. The court decides to transfer the case to the Circuit Court of Caroline County.

There is no dispute over travel distances among the various witnesses and parties. Plaintiff and four witnesses including defendant have distances to this court ranging from 72 miles to 39 miles. Travel for them to Caroline County is considerably shoiter. The distance for the four doctors and a nurse plaintiff has *516named as witnesses do not exceed 44 miles to Caroline County in any instance. From experience, the court is not unmindful that a plaintiff rarely has all the doctors attend a trial but typically will rely on video or deposition transcript reading to present evidence from those witnesses.

Accordingly, looking at the array of witnesses as a whole, defendant has made out a case of substantial inconvenience of the parties and witnesses for any trial here. Given this, it is not necessary to decide plaintiffs motion to retain.
IIA 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 27 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture 

relating to inspection of fish of the order Siluriformes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2015 

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Ms. AYOTTE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Secretary of Agriculture relating to inspection of 

fish of the order Siluriformes. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Sec4 retary of Agriculture relating to ‘‘Mandatory Inspection 

5 of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived 

6 From Such Fish’’ (80 Fed. Reg. 75590; December 2, 

7 2015), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 12.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in millions)
 Six FiscalMonthsEndedJuly 3,
    
    
    Year ended December 31,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004EARNINGS AS DEFINEDEarnings (loss) from operations before income taxes and
before
adjustments for noncontrolling interests in consolidated
subsidiaries and after eliminating undistributed earnings
of equity method investees
    
    $
    154.8
    
    
    $
    302.4
    
    
    $
    288.9
    
    
    $
    203.2
    
    
    $
    61.5
    
    
    $
    18.5Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    (0.2
    )
    
    
    (0.3
    )
    
    
    (0.5
    )
    
    
    (0.5
    )
    
    
    (33.8
    )
    
    
    (9.2
    )Fixed charges
    
    
    47.2
    
    
    
    109.2
    
    
    
    71.3
    
    
    
    44.4
    
    
    
    76.7
    
    
    
    49.4TOTAL EARNINGS, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    201.8
    
    
    $
    411.3
    
    
    $
    359.7
    
    
    $
    247.1
    
    
    $
    104.4
    
    
    $
    58.7FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINEDInterest expense
    
    $
    42.3
    
    
    $
    98.4
    
    
    $
    63.6
    
    
    $
    38.1
    
    
    $
    36.5
    
    
    $
    35.0Amortization of capitalized expenses related to debt
    
    
    2.3
    
    
    
    5.7
    
    
    
    3.6
    
    
    
    3.0
    
    
    
    3.4
    
    
    
    2.7Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    0.2
    
    
    
    0.3
    
    
    
    0.5
    
    
    
    0.5
    
    
    
    33.8
    
    
    
    9.2Interest component of rent expense
    
    
    2.4
    
    
    
    4.8
    
    
    
    3.6
    
    
    
    2.8
    
    
    
    3.0
    
    
    
    2.5TOTAL FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    47.2
    
    
    $
    109.2
    
    
    $
    71.3
    
    
    $
    44.4
    
    
    $
    76.7
    
    
    $
    49.4RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
    
    
    4.3
    
    
    
    3.8
    
    
    
    5.0
    
    
    
    5.6
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                       4,820,409
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,709,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,839,355
<PP&E>                                      34,600,772
<DEPRECIATION>                              25,677,953
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,481,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,416,740
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        100
<COMMON>                                       176,673
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,276,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,481,167
<SALES>                                      1,585,221
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,586,980
<CGS>                                        1,051,379
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,051,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,706,794
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             144,190
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,315,383)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,315,383)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,315,383)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.25)
        

</TABLE>