alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust ServicesMAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

270 Park Avenue, 

New York, NY 10017

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator  and Paying Agent for the IDS Center Whole 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 9, 2015

 

/s/  Brian Smith

Brian Smith

Vice President

 

 

 

To:  J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

 

Schedule A

 

 

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

 

 

1.   Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2013, by and among J.P. MORGAN CHASE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP, as Depositor, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION  OF  PNC  BANK,  NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as  Master   Servicer,   BERKADIA COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE LLC, as Special Servicer, and PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor and Wells Fargo Bank, NA. as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent, Trustee and Custodian relating to the Series JPM 2013-C13 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates relating to the IDS Center Whole Loan, a pari passu portion  of which is included in the Series JPMC 2013-C12 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.

 

 

 

 

To: J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

 

Schedule B

 

 

**Material Non-Compliance****with****Servicing Obligations**

 

Not Applicable
November 19, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RAFAEL OJEDA, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00783-CV V.

SARENS BESTUUR, NV, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on July 25, 2013. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Rafael Ojeda.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Simone Blank, 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:

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.



|              |  |                                                                               
|------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|July 31, 2009 |  | /S/ SIMONE BLANK                                                              
|              |  | Simone Blank                                                                  
|              |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Chief Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Sirona
Dental Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner, v. Todd M. BERCIER, Respondent.

No. 2008-3098.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 11, 2008.

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE and LINN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

Upon review of this recently docketed petition for review of an initial decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in *Bercier v. Department of Health and Human Servs.,*Docket No. DE0752070183 (Initial Decision November 2, 2007), the court considers whether the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Todd M. Bercier filed an appeal at the Board challenging a reduction in grade. The Administrative Judge held that Bercier established entitlement to relief under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 and granted Bercier corrective action. On December 10, 20.07, the court received a petition for review signed by an agency representative. The court docketed the petition as 2008-3098.

Only the Office of Personnel Management can petition this court for review of a Board decision on behalf of an agency. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(d). The Office of Personnel Management is not the petitioner in this case and thus the petition must be dismissed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 134775 & (29) (30) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134775 COA: 276216 Kent CC: 05-004985-FH JOHN FITZGERALD STEVENS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, application for l eave to appeal the July 26, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motions for miscellaneous relief are DENIED.

s1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
(logo)  RialtoCAPITAL ** 2015 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of  June 1, 2013  by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor and U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee relating to the WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2013-C14, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-C14  (**WFRBS 2013-C14**)The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:1. All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.2. A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.3. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein. Certified by: /s/ Adam SingerAdam Singer, Managing Director Date: March 1, 2016
PROMISSORY NOTE



 Exhibit 10.2 
 PROMISSORY NOTE 
  

					
	 $1,237,191.00
	  	 	December 16, 2011	  

 For value received, Ginger Punch Racing Corporation, a Delaware corporation having an address at 901
South Federal Highway, Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009 (“Borrower”), promises to pay to the order of The Alpen House Racing ULC, an Alberta unlimited liability company, (“Lender”), at its office in Aurora, Ontario, Canada (or at
such other location as Lender may direct), in lawful money of the United States of America and in immediately available funds, on the Maturity Date (as hereafter defined), the principal sum of One Million Two Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand One
Hundred Ninety-One Dollars and No Cents ($1,237,191.00), together with interest on the unpaid principal balance hereof at the rate of 0.19% per annum, compounded annually on each anniversary of the date hereof, from and including the date
hereof to but excluding the date of payment. As used herein, “Maturity Date” shall mean the earlier of (i) December 16, 2014 and (ii) the date of consummation of an offering of equity securities of Borrower pursuant to which
net proceeds from the sale of such equity securities to persons other than affiliates of Lender or Borrower equal or exceed the amount then due under this Note. This Note may be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without penalty or premium. An
“Event of Default” shall occur hereunder if the principal of and all accrued and unpaid interest on this Note shall not have been paid in full by 5:00 Eastern Standard Time on the Maturity Date. 

Borrower shall pay all costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and legal expenses, if this Note is not paid when
due, whether or not legal proceedings are commenced. 
 Presentment for payment, demand, notice of dishonor and protest and any
and all other notices and defenses, including but not limited to set-off and counterclaim, are expressly waived. 
 This Note
shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida without giving effect to conflicts of law provisions thereof. 
  


			
	GINGER PUNCH RACING CORPORATION
	a Delaware corporation, as Borrower
		
	By:	 	/s/ Lyle Strachan
	Name:	 	Lyle Strachan
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
Cardiac EP Business Participation Plan Award Agreement



 Exhibit 10.30 
 June 2, 2010 
 Dr. Nassir F. Marrouche 

3293 Niblick Drive 
 Park City, UT 84098

  

	 	Re:	Cardiac EP Business Participation Plan Award Agreement 

 Dear Nassir: 
 This letter (this “Letter Agreement”) sets forth
the agreement between you and SurgiVision, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), regarding the terms upon which you are eligible to receive a payment (the “Liquidity Payout”) pursuant to the Company’s
Cardiac EP Business Participation Plan (the “Plan”), a copy of which is attached hereto and the terms of which are incorporated herein. This Letter Agreement is in addition to, and not in substitution for, any other agreement
between you and the Company. 
 1. Participation Interest. As contemplated by the Plan, you are hereby awarded a six and
60/100ths percent (6.60%) Participation Interest, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 3.4 of the Plan. 
 2.
Plan Governs. You acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Plan and agree to be bound by all the terms and provisions thereof. The terms of this Letter Agreement are governed by and are subject to the terms of the Plan, and in the case of any
inconsistency between the terms of this Letter Agreement and the terms of the Plan, the terms of the Plan will govern. 
 3.
Definitions. For purposes of this Letter Agreement, capitalized terms not expressly defined herein will have the meanings ascribed to those terms in the Plan. 
 4. Amendments. At any time prior to the consummation of a Liquidity Event, the Company may amend or alter the terms of this Letter Agreement and/or the Plan; provided, however, that any such
amendment or alteration that impairs your rights under this Letter Agreement or the Plan will require your prior consent. 
 5.
Non-Transferable. You acknowledge and agree that your rights under this Letter Agreement may not be transferred, conveyed, encumbered or assigned, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. 

6. Counterparts. This Letter Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original but all of
which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 








 Dr. Nassir F. Marrouche 
 June 2, 2010 
  Page
 2
 
  

 If this Letter Agreement sets forth our agreement on the subject matter hereof, kindly
sign and return this letter to the Company. 
  

			
	Sincerely,
	
	SURGIVISION, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kimble L. Jenkins
		 	Kimble L. Jenkins
		 	Chief Executive Officer and President


  

	
	Agreed to as of this 3rd day of June, 2010.
	
	/s/ Nassir F. Marrouche
	Nassir F. Marrouche
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2409 

To decrease the statutory limit on the public debt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 6, 2011 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To decrease the statutory limit on the public debt. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DECREASE IN STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUB4 LIC DEBT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 3101 of 

6 title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out 

7 the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and in8 serting in lieu thereof ‘‘$13,000,000,000,000’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2011. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of the United States Trade Representative

# AGENCY:

Office of the United States Trade Representative.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is publishing the names of the members selected to serve on its Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board (PRB). This notice supersedes all previous PRB membership notices.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ron Nerida, Human Capital Specialist, Office of Human Capital and Services, at (202) 395-7360 or                         *RNerida@ustr.eop.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1)-(5)), require USTR to establish a PRB to review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and make recommendations regarding performance ratings to the United States Trade Representative or his designee. The Act (5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4)) requires USTR to publish the PRB membership in the                     **Federal Register**                    . The following individuals have been selected to serve on USTR's PRB:                          ( print page 43641)    

*Chair:*                     Lewis Karesh, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade and Labor.                

*Member:*                     Barbara Weisel, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.                

*Member:*                     Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Agricultural Affairs.                

*Member:*                     John Melle, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Western Hemisphere.                

*Member:*                     Bill Jackson, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Textile Affairs.                

Fred Ames,

Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Administration, Office of the United States Trade Representative.

[FR Doc. 2017-19689 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3290-F7-P
#### Howard SMITH v. The HOBART MANUFACTURING CO. v. HOLIDAY FROSTED FOOD COMPANY.

Civ. A. No. 23264.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 12, 1962.

*582Benjamin Kuby, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.-

Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, by John B. Hannum, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

WOOD, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The facts of this case are thoroughly set out in the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals which reviewed the second trial of this controversy.1

The defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is predicated on the basis that there is no factual dispute for the jury to decide. It is contended by the defendant that the issue of liability as framed by the Court of Appeals is purely hypothetical and allows the jury to resort to conjecture in reaching its verdict. We cannot agree with this proposition in the light of the opinion by Judge Ganey at page 576, where he states:

> “We think Smith was prevented from having his day in court on this issue, and, in the interest of justice he should be awarded a new trial, limited to the proof that the guard would not have prevented his injuries.”

No clearer mandate could be given to a trial court. This issue was not presented to the jury at the second trial. The defendant would have us apply the testimony given at the first trial to substantiate its Motion for Summary Judgment in this proceeding. Even if this were done, it still leaves a disputed issue of fact raised by the plaintiff’s complaint which alleged the defective design of the machine throughout paragraph 11. Also, expert testimony was offered pro and con as to whether the guard would have prevented Smith’s hand from slipping into the worm of the meat grinder. This testimony was excluded by the Court at the second trial. Therefore, a genuine issue of fact does exist which must properly be submitted to a jury. The record contains sufficient genuine disputes as to a material fact that a motion under Rule 56, F.R. Civ.P. may not be granted. Bragen v. Hudson County News Company, 278 F. 2d 615, 617 (3 Cir., 1960). Further*583more, the rule in this Circuit is that the formal allegations of a pleading are enough to raise a genuine issue as to any material fact. This is so even against a detailed showing by affidavits and depositions to the contrary. Frederick Hart v. Recordgraph Corp., 169 F.2d 580 (3 Cir., 1948), and Reynolds Metals Co., v. Metal Disintegrating Co., 3 Cir., 176 F.2d 90 (1949).

Hobart has been faced with a heavy burden to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists in this case, especially in view of the opinion of Judge Ganey, supra, footnote 1. Hobart has not successfully carried that burden and the motion must be denied.

1

. Smith v. Hobart Manufacturing Co., 302 F.2d 570 (3 Cir., 1902).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                        2291
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                14613   <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                      135231
<DEPRECIATION>                                5459
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              164797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         8
<OTHER-SE>                                    7577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                164797
<SALES>                                      23951
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             25287
<CGS>                                        22299   <F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                22808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              4201   <F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            1604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (3329)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (918)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (2411)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (2411)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.29)
<FN>
<F1> Receivables are comprised of due from tax credit partnerships, construction
     contracts  receivables,  notes  receivable  and  due  from  related parties

<F2> Cost  of goods sold is comprised of cost of construction, write-down of tax
     credit  partnerships  to  fair  value,  cost  of  homes  sold  and  cost of
     commercial  properties  sold

<F3> Other  expenses  are  comprised of general and administrative, depreciation
     and  amortization  expenses  and  joint  venture  losses.



</TABLE>
EX-35.1
(logo) BERKADIA
THE INDUSTRY OF ONE


Annual Statement as to Compliance
For the Period Ended September 5, 2013

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2013-C13 Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2013-C13

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing the
referenced transaction, I Mark E. McCool, on behalf of Berkadia Commercial
Mortgage LLC as Special Servicer, certify to J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial
Mortgage Securities Corp. and its officers, directors and affiliates, and with
the knowledge and intent that they will rely upon this certification, that:

i.  A review of the activities of Berkadia Commercial Mortgage as Special
    Servicer during the period, and of its performance under the Pooling and
    Servicing Agreement, has been made under my supervision.

ii. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia Commercial
    Mortgage as Special Servicer has fulfilled in all material respects its
    obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout the period.

Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC


/s/ Mark E. McCool
Mark E. McCool
Executive Vice President
February 20, 2014


118 WELSH ROAD  HORSHAM, PA 19044  215.328.3200  BERKADIA.COM