alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.1




Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation








NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION






OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE






The undersigned, Mark Kaczynski, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:




(1)           The undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the period March 21, 2012 through March 31, 2012 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, as amended and as supplemented by the 2012-A SUBI Servicing Supplement, dated as of March 21, 2012 (as supplemented, the “Agreement”), by and among Nissan-Infiniti LT, as titling trust, NILT Trust, as UTI beneficiary, and the Company, as servicer, to be conducted under his supervision; and




(2)           To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.




This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed securities.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 15th day of June, 2012.




/s/ Mark Kaczynski


Mark Kaczynski


President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 211.27 Duration of leases. ( a ) All leases shall be for a term not to exceed a primary term of lease duration of ten (10) years and, absent specific lease provisions to the contrary, shall continue as long thereafter as the minerals specified in the lease are produced in paying quantities. Absent specific lease provisions to the contrary, all provisions in leases governing their duration shall be measured from the date of approval by the Secretary.
( b ) An oil and gas or geothermal resource lease which stipulates that it shall continue in full force and effect beyond the expiration of the primary term of lease duration (“commencement clause”) if drilling operations have commenced during the primary term, shall be valid and shall hold the lease beyond the primary term of lease duration if the lessee or the lessee's designee has commenced actual drilling by midnight of the last day of the primary term of the lease with a drilling rig designed to reach the total proposed depth, and drilling is continued with reasonable diligence until the well is completed to production or abandoned. However, in no case shall such drilling hold the lease longer than 120 days past the primary term of lease duration without actual production of oil, gas, or geothermal resources. *Provided,* that this extension does not allow a lease to continue past the 10-year statutory limitation. Drilling which meets the requirements of this section and occurs within a unit or communitization agreement to which the lease is committed shall be considered as if it occurs on the leasehold itself. If there is a conflict between the commencement clause and the habendum clause of a lease, the commencement clause will control.
( c ) A solid minerals lease which stipulates that it shall continue in full force and effect beyond the expiration of the primary term of lease duration if mining operations have commenced during the primary term (commencement clause), shall be valid and hold the lease beyond the primary term of lease duration if the lessee or the lessee's designee has by midnight of the last day of the primary term of the lease commenced actual removal of mineral materials intended for sale and upon which royalties will be paid. If there is a conflict between the commencement clause and the habendum clause of a lease, the commencement clause will control.
----

Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-316/06)

(2006/C 224/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applican: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the Irish authorities are in breach of their obligations to ensure that waste waters from the agglomerations in questions are subject to secondary treatment (or equivalent), as set out in Article 4 of the directive.

Although Ireland has offered explanations as to the delays encountered in these agglomerations and has provided some indications of the state of progress in meeting the directive's requirements, it is the Commission's view that these explanations and indications cannot be considered as excusing a failure to meet the deadline fixed in Article 4(1), first indent, of the directive. Moreover, the Commission submits that the information provided by the Irish authorities is insufficient to allow it to conclude that the installation of secondary waste-water treatment plants in these agglomerations is imminent. In most cases, it appears that several further stages need to be completed before the treatment plants will be installed.

----

(1)OJ L 135, P.40 - 52

----
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 225

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives condemning the arson

at three Sacramento, California, area synagogues on June 18, 1999,

and affirming its opposition to all forms of hate crimes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 25, 1999

Mr. MATSUI (for himself, Mr. OSE, Mr. POMBO, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr.

HERGER, Mr. THOMPSON of California, and Mr. CONDIT) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives condemning the arson at three Sacramento, California, area

synagogues on June 18, 1999, and affirming its opposition to all forms of hate crimes.

Whereas in the dark of night on June 18, 1999, the houses

of worship of Congregation B’Nai Israel, Congregation

Beth Shalom, and Kenesset Israel Torah Center were

struck with malicious acts of arson;

Whereas a coordinated, destructive, and violent attack on

three synagogues is an act of intolerance, prejudice, and

hatred;
2

•HRES 225 IH

Whereas a hate-driven attack upon any group of Americans

is an affront to everyone who cherishes the freedoms of

America and the values that sustain our democracy;

Whereas crimes of hate against any group are crimes against

us all; and

Whereas every Member of Congress has a responsibility to

honor and protect all of the religious and cultural traditions which make our Nation great: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) condemns the cowardly hate crimes that oc3 curred in Sacramento, California, at Congregation

4 B’Nai Israel, Congregation Beth Shalom, and

5 Kenesset Israel Torah Center on June 18, 1999;

6 (2) applauds the strength and unity displayed

7 by the people of Sacramento, California, in coming

8 together to condemn these acts and to renew their

9 community;

10 (3) reaffirms the determination of all of its

11 Members to oppose any individuals or organizations

12 which seek to divide Americans on the grounds of

13 race, religion, or ethnic origin;

14 (4) denounces all those who practice or promote

15 racism, anti-Semitism, prejudice, or religious or

16 other intolerance;

17 (5) implores the Sacramento and Federal law

18 enforcement agencies to aggressively pursue their in-
3

•HRES 225 IH

1 vestigation to find the perpetrators of these hate

2 crimes and bring them swiftly to justice; and

3 (6) calls upon all Americans to reject the forces

4 of hatred and bigotry wherever and in whatever form

5 they may manifest.

Æ
Editorial Note on Part 224
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

§ 224.205 What must the Secretary do upon approval of an application for certification? If the Secretary approves an application for certification, the Secretary must do the following within 10 days of making the determination under § 224.203: ( a ) Issue a certification stating that: ( 1 ) The TEDO is organized under the laws of the Tribe and subject to the Tribe's jurisdiction, laws, and authority;
( 2 ) The majority of the interest in the TEDO is owned and controlled by the Tribe (or the Tribe and one or more other Tribes) and the Tribal land of which is being developed;
( 3 ) The TEDO's organizing document requires the Tribe with jurisdiction over the land to maintain, at all times, the controlling interest in the TEDO;
( 4 ) The TEDO's organizing document requires the Tribe (or the Tribe and one or more other Tribes the Tribal land of which is being developed) to own and control, at all times, a majority of the interest in the TEDO;
( 5 ) The certification is issued under 25 U.S.C. 3504(h); and
( 6 ) Nothing in the certification waives the sovereign immunity of the Tribe.
( b ) Deliver a copy of the Certification to the applicant Tribe (or Tribes, as applicable); and
( c ) Publish the certification in the Federal Register.
|                                                                                              | Three Months Ended
March 31, | Nine Months Ended
March 31,
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ---------------------------
|                                                                                              | 2001                         | 2000                       
|Net Income                                                                                    | $  66,561                    | $  96,615                  
|                                                                                              |                              |                            
|Weighted average common shares
      outstanding for basic computation                        | 363,975                      | 363,975                    
|                                                                                              |                              |                            
|Basic earnings per share                                                                      | $   0.18                     | $   0.27                   
|                                                                                              |                              |                            
|Weighted average common shares
      outstanding for basic computation                        | 363,975                      | 363,975                    
|                                                                                              |                              |                            
|Common stock equivalents due to
      dilutive effect of stock options                        | 2,348                        | 2,203                      
|                                                                                              |                              |                            
|Weighted average common shares and
      equivalents outstanding for      diluted computation | 366,323                      | 366,178                    
|                                                                                              |                              |                            
|Diluted earnings per share                                                                    | $   0.18                     | $   0.26
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as chief financial officer of Iron Age Corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify that to the undersigneds knowledge:

|
|
|
|
|
|



|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/   Bart R. Huchel                                                          
|                                                                              
|Bart R. Huchel
Chief Financial Officer, Vice President - Finance and
Treasurer

Dated: September 10, 2002
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Leah Nivison,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the GS MortgageSecurities Trust 2012-GC6 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

KeyBank NationalAssociation, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as SpecialServicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, and TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., asOperating Advisor.

 

 

 

Dated: March 23, 2018

 

 

/s/ Leah Nivison

 

 

Chief ExecutiveOfficer

(senior officerin charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Robert E. White, also known as Verlous L. Like, appellant.

225 N. W. 2d 426

Filed January 30, 1975.

No. 39753.

*94Robert E. White, pro se.

' Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Terry R. Schaaf, for appellee.

. Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, McC'own, Newton, Clinton, and Brodkey, JJ.

Boslaugh, J.

On January 10, 1972, the defendant was placed on probation for 2 years following a plea of guilty to burglary. On January 11, 1974, a written notice of alleged violations of probation was served upon the defendant.

The defendant was charged with failing to report and with leaving the jurisdiction of the court without permission. On January 25, 1974, he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment on March 13, 1974. This sentence was to be served concurrently with a federal sentence imposed on February 14, 1974. The defendant contends the sentence imposed on March 13, 1974, was unlawful because the probation period expired January 10, 1974.

A proceeding to revoke probation may be instituted within the probationary period or within a reasonable time thereafter. See, Phoenix v. State, 162 Neb. 669, 77 N. W. 2d 237; State v. Holiday, 182 Neb. 229, 153 N. W. 2d 855. The proceeding here commenced on the day after the term had ended. The judgment of the District Court denying relief to the defendant was correct and is affirmed.

Affirmed.
EX-35.1
(logo) Bank of America.

ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION

Re: Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.
    Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-C4

In connection with the above-referenced transaction the undersigned officer, on
behalf of Bank of America, National Association, hereby certifies that (i) a
review of the activities, for the period ending December 31, 2012 and of its
performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2011
(the "PSA") has been made under my supervision, and (ii) to the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, Bank of America, National Association has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the PSA in all material respects
throughout the aforementioned period.


Bank of America, National Association

/s/Dean B. Roberson
Dean B. Roberson
Director
#### § 20.701 Does a recipient receive financial assistance while an appeal is pending?

Yes, if you appeal under this subpart, financial assistance will be continued or reinstated to insure there is no break in financial assistance until the Superintendent or his/her designated representative makes a decision. The Superintendent or his/her designated representative can adjust payments or recover overpayments to conform with his/her decision.

[65 FR 63159, Oct. 20, 2000; 65 FR 76563, Dec. 7, 2000]
#### § 30.120 How will the Secretary notify BIE-funded schools that they have been identified for school support and improvement activities?

The Secretary will notify each BIE-funded school that has been identified for comprehensive support and improvement as described in § 30.111(h).
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00010-CR

JACOB TURNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District Court 

No. 1

of Tarrant County (1684372D)

September 7, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Brian Walker

 Justice Brian Walker
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# USS Harpers Ferry Arrives in Hawaii

By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Zachary EshlemanCommander, Amphibious Squadron 1 Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More Articles/News
#### § 170.702 What activities may the Secretaries review and monitor?

The Secretaries review and monitor the performance of all TTP activities.
# C_2006165EN.01003403.xml

| 15.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/34

---

Action brought on 8 May 2006 — Kerstens v Commission

(Case F-59/06)

(2006/C 165/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petrus J.F. Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 11 July 2005 adopting the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the year 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 11 July 2005 adopting the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the year 2004;

| — | Annul the Appointing Authority's express decision of 6 February 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint No R/769/05; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Appointing Authority's express decision of 6 February 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint No R/769/05;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official, challenges the merit points and markings contained in his CDR for the year 2004. He pleads infringement of the appraisal procedure rules and of the General Provisions Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant reserves, lastly, the right to expound a third plea in law alleging misuse of powers.

---