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

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

LIBERATO CABALO, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

EMC MORTGAGE, et al.,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-5667 MEJ

ORDER RE: REQUEST TO

WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF

RECORD

SECOND ORDER FOR PARTIES TO

FILE JOINT STATUS STATEMENT

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request to withdraw as counsel of record, filed

April 4, 2010. (Dkt. #51.) However, on March 8, 2010, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint

status report by March 25, 2010. (Dkt. #50.) The Court shall not permit any withdrawal of counsel

prior to receipt of the joint status report. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties to file

the joint status report by April 14, 2010. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the

imposition of sanctions, including sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-05667-MEJ Document 52 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 33.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SEC REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA 

 

 

Pacific Life Insurance Company (the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2021, with the Relevant Servicing Criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the SEC’s Regulation AB, excluding the criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(ii), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(ii), (d)(4)(iv), (d)(4)(v), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii), (d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv), which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the activities it performs, with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions covered by this report (such criteria, after giving effect to the exclusions identified above, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”). The transactions covered by this report include all asset-backed transactions under the Securitized Commercial Mortgage Loans Platform (the “Platform”), as listed in Appendix A.

 

The Asserting Party has used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB in order to assess the effectiveness of Pacific Life Insurance Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2021. The Asserting Party has concluded that it has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2021, with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

 

Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report for the Platform on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2021 as set forth in this assertion.

 

 

Pacific Life Insurance Company

 

 

/s/ Edwin FerrellEdwin FerrellVP, Investment Management 

February 18, 2022

 

PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

700 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660-6397

----

 

APPENDIX A

 

 

 

SECURITIZED COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE LOANS PLATFORM

 

 

|                        |                                |
|------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Trust Name             | Loan Name                      |
|                   |                           |
| COMM 2014-277P         | 277 Park Avenue                |
| HGMT 2015-HGLR         | Houston Galleria Mall          |
| DBJPM 2016 –SFC  | Westfield San Francisco Center |
| JPM 2015 – WPG   | Scottsdale Quarter             |
| BMARK 2019 – B12 | Woodlands Mall                 |
| CSMC 2020-WEST         | Westchester Mall

        |
#### H. E. R. Laboratories, Inc., Appellant, v. Morris Rosensweig et al., Defendants. Rudolph Allen, an Attorney, Respondent.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan and Breitel, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 676.]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6116

DONALD CARR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ADRIENNE POTEAT, Warden; MICHAEL GAINES, United States Parole Commission Chairman, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-2071-AM) Submitted: May 18, 2001 Decided: October 1, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Carr, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Donald Carr appeals the district court’s order denying reliefon his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Carr v. Poteat , No. CA-00-2071-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 20, 2000). Wegrant Carr’s motion to amend his informal brief to correct a typographical error, and the corrected pages have been filed. We denyhis motion for a preliminary injunction and his request for a certificate of appealability. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32(ii)



Certification



STATEMENT OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER

OF TICE TECHNOLOGY, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tice
Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as amended and restated and as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Sharon Draper, Chief Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  | 
|---------------------- |  | 
|Date: October 24, 2003 |  | 
|                       |  | 
|                       |  |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sigmund Zochowski, Appellant.

Upon reargument, order unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Monroe County Court for a hearing, in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: This matter was remitted to County Court for the sole and limited purpose of determining whether section 662-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been complied with by service upon defendant’s attorney prior to the plea of guilty of a copy of the psychiatrist’s report pursuant to section 662 of the code. A hearing was held for this specific purpose and a determination was made that there had been compliance with the code in this respect. Upon reargument of this appeal we now determine that the matter should again be remitted to Monroe County Court for a full hearing on the question of appellant’s competency at the time of his plea of guilty. (See *People*v. *Boundy,*10 N Y 2d 518; *People*v. *Sprague,*11 N Y 2d 951.) (Reargument of appeal from order of Monroe County Court denying a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction on July 12, 1960, for grand larceny, second degree as a third felony offender.) Present—-Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Management Oversight of Acquisition Organizations will meet in open session on January 10-11, 2005, and January 17-18, 2005, at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA. This Task Force should assess whether all major acquisition organizations within the Department have adequate management and oversight processes, including what changes might be necessary to implement such processes where needed.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will examine the oversight function with respect to Title 10 and military department regulations to ensure that proper checks and balances exist. The Task Force will review whether simplification of the acquisition structure could improve both efficiency and oversight.

In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, these meetings will be closed to the public.

Dated: December 20, 2004.

Jeannette Owings-Ballard,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 04-28263 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kenneth Frankiewicz, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 20 C.D. 2017

: Submitted: September 1, 2017

Workers' Compensation Appeal :

Board (Kinder Morgan, Inc.), :

:

Respondent :

PER CURIAM

O R D E R

NOW, this 21st day of February, 2018, it is ordered that the above-captioned 

Memorandum Opinion, filed November 14, 2017, shall be designated OPINION and 

shall be REPORTED.
#### Albert Gutwirth v. Carewell Trading Corporation et al.

Motion for leave to dispense with printing granted insofar as to dispense with the printing in the record on appeal of the exhibits described in the notice of motion herein on condition that the originals thereof are filed with the clerk of this court on or before the Wednesday preceding the first day of the term for which the appeal is noticed for argument. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
§ 225.110 Expedited review procedures for certain kinds of research involving no more than minimal risk, and for minor changes in approved research. ( a ) The Secretary of HHS has established, and published as a Notice in the Federal Register, a list of categories of research that may be reviewed by the IRB through an expedited review procedure. The Secretary will evaluate the list at least every 8 years and amend it, as appropriate, after consultation with other federal departments and agencies and after publication in the Federal Register for public comment. A copy of the list is available from the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office.
( b ) ( 1 ) An IRB may use the expedited review procedure to review the following: ( i ) Some or all of the research appearing on the list described in paragraph (a) of this section, unless the reviewer determines that the study involves more than minimal risk;
( ii ) Minor changes in previously approved research during the period for which approval is authorized; or
( iii ) Research for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption under § 225.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), and (d)(7) and (8).
( 2 ) Under an expedited review procedure, the review may be carried out by the IRB chairperson or by one or more experienced reviewers designated by the chairperson from among members of the IRB. In reviewing the research, the reviewers may exercise all of the authorities of the IRB except that the reviewers may not disapprove the research. A research activity may be disapproved only after review in accordance with the nonexpedited procedure set forth in § 225.108(b).
( c ) Each IRB that uses an expedited review procedure shall adopt a method for keeping all members advised of research proposals that have been approved under the procedure.
( d ) The department or agency head may restrict, suspend, terminate, or choose not to authorize an institution's or IRB's use of the expedited review procedure.
| USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS                  |
|---------------------------------------------------|
| U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1330 |

# Spatial Trends in Ash Yield, Sulfur, Selenium, and Other Selected Trace Element Concentrations in Coal Beds of the Appalachian Plateau Region, U.S.A.

Published 2005
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77740-77741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28264]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Red Lessons Learned 
will meet in closed session on December 16-17, 2004, at SAIC, 4001 N. 
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA. This Task Force will assess what useful 
information can our adversaries learn from U.S. military engagement 
and, particularly, what might they have learned from Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; identify the channels through 
which adversaries learn about U.S. capabilities; is there any evidence 
an adversary is adjusting to U.S. capabilities and what might the U.S. 
do to counter this; what are the indicators or observables that the 
Intelligence Community can focus on to determine if an adversary is 
engaging in this type of practice and do the indicators change in 
peacetime or wartime; do different technology insertion models exist; 
is there any evidence potential adversaries

[[Page 77741]]

are targeting the seams in the U.S. command and control alignment and 
planning process; and the preceding areas of concern focus primarily on 
the military operations phases, are the potential adversaries 
observing, analyzing and adapting during the preparation and 
stabilization phase?
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, these 
meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: November 29, 2004.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-28264 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
§ 513.635 Reporting of and employee sanctions for convictions of criminal drug offenses. ( a ) When a grantee other than an individual is notified that an employee has been convicted for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace, it shall take the following actions: ( 1 ) Within 10 calendar days of receiving notice of the conviction, the grantee shall provide written notice, including the convicted employee's position title, to every grant officer, or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless a Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notifications. Notification shall include the identification number(s) for each of the Federal agency's affected grants.
( 2 ) Within 30 calendar days of receiving notice of the conviction, the grantee shall do the following with respect to the employee who was convicted. ( i ) Take appropriate personnel action against the employee, up to and including termination, consistent with requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or
( ii ) Require the employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency.
( b ) A grantee who is an individual who is convicted for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring during the conduct of any grant activity shall report the conviction, in writing, within 10 calendar days, to his or her Federal agency grant officer, or other designee, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notification shall include the identification number(s) for each of the Federal agency's affected grants.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0991-0002)
#### § 51.74 Final decision.

After reviewing the record of the hearing and the preliminary findings of fact and recommendations of the hearing officer, and considering legal and policy considerations he or she deems relevant, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services, or his or her designee, will decide whether to uphold the denial or revocation of the passport or cancellation of the Consular Report of Birth Abroad. The Department will promptly notify the person requesting the hearing of the decision in writing. If the decision is to uphold the denial, revocation, or cancellation, the notice will contain the reason(s) for the decision. The decision is final and is not subject to further administrative review.

[83 FR 21876, May 11, 2018]
### §7144d. Office of Arctic Energy

#### (a) Establishment

The Secretary of Energy may establish within the Department of Energy an Office of Arctic Energy.

#### (b) Purposes

The purposes of such office shall be as follows:

(1) To promote research, development, and deployment of electric power technology that is cost-effective and especially well suited to meet the needs of rural and remote regions of the United States, especially where permafrost is present or located nearby.

(2) To promote research, development, and deployment in such regions of—

(A) enhanced oil recovery technology, including heavy oil recovery, reinjection of carbon, and extended reach drilling technologies;

(B) gas-to-liquids technology and liquified natural gas (including associated transportation systems);

(C) small hydroelectric facilities, river turbines, and tidal power;

(D) natural gas hydrates, coal bed methane, and shallow bed natural gas; and

(E) alternative energy, including wind, geothermal, and fuel cells.

#### (c) Location

The Secretary shall locate such office at a university with expertise and experience in the matters specified in subsection (b).

(Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXI, §3197], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–482.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.
Medicine Bow

Ww
=
=
ie
4
a

SWEETWATER
CARBON

_&

4 Communities at Risk*
0 10 20 40 60 80 100
| Use of Wildland Fire .
; . . Kilometers
| Checkerboard and Inter-mixed Public and Private Lands 0 5 10 20 30 40 50
F a
(9) Wildland Urban Interface Fr
iles
* This map does not show all the potential communities at
risk only those presently identified by the State of Wyoming.
Map 2-1

Fire Management

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENENTECH, INC., et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND

GMBH, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C08-4909 SI (BZ)

EIGHTH DISCOVERY ORDER

Following a telephone conference with respect to

Genentech’s request to take discovery in order to prepare its

opposition to Sanofi’s motion for leave to amend (Docket No.

259), at which all parties were represented by counsel, the

Court finds as follows:

1. Discovery with respect to Avastin and Xolair is

relevant to the issues raised by Genentech’s complaint for

declaratory relief.

2. Such discovery is not needed to permit Genentech to

oppose Sanofi’s motion to amend its complaint and its

infringement contentions. In my opinion, that motion should

Case 3:08-cv-04909-SI Document 285 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

be decided on grounds other than whether these two products

infringe Sanofi’s patents. 

3. Under Rule 16 and Rule 26(b)(2)(C), the timing of

such discovery should not interfere with the resolution of the

motion for leave to amend or the present schedule for serving

infringement and invalidity contentions and for claims

construction.

It is therefore ORDERED that Genentech’s request to take

discovery with respect to Avastin and Xolair to assist it in

opposing Sanofi’s motion for leave to amend its complaint and

its infringement contentions is DENIED, without prejudice.

It is further ORDERED that such discovery may be taken

after Judge Illston rules on Sanofi’s motion, in the event the

motion is granted or in the event the motion is denied and

Genentech continues to seek a declaratory judgment that these

two products do not infringe Sanofi’s patents.

Dated: February 3, 2010 

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\GENENTECH\DISC ORD 8.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-04909-SI Document 285 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 2