alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 34.1a





LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (the
Company), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage
loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider (the Platform), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii),
1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible
for the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts
calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with
the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.

February 4, 2016

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201

T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
mcri_Ex4_01


		
			Exhibit 4.01
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						

					
					
						[LOGO] INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA COMMON STOCK – $0.01 PER VALUE SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS THIS CERTIFIES THAT CUSIP 609027 10 7 Is The Owner of SPECIMEN SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF MONARCH CASINO & RESORT, INC. transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. In Witness Whereof, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to the signed by the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with the facsimile seal of the Corporation. Dated: TREASURER [SEAL] PRESIDENT COUNTERSIGNED: BROADRIDGE CORPORATE ISSUER SOLUTIONS, INC. 1717 ARCH ST., STE. 1300, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 TRANSFER AGENT BY: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

					
						 

				



		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		



		 


 


	
					
						

					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						

					
					
						MONARCH CASINO & RESORT, INC. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM — as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT — Custodian TEN ENT — as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors JT TEN — as joint tenants with right of survivorship Act (State) and not as tenants in common Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE For Value Received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE Shares of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated, , 19 . X X SPECIMEN Signature Guaranteed: NOTICE: The signature(s) to this assignment must correspond with the name(s) as written upon the face of the Certificate in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever. IMPORTANT: SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY A FIRM WHICH IS A MEMBER OF A REGISTERED NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE, OR BY A COMMERCIAL BANK OR A TRUST COMPANY.
#### § 981.15 Almond product.

*Almond product* means any edible preparation other than those included under the definition of “shelled almonds,” manufactured entirely or partially from raw shelled almonds, and nut mixtures containing shelled or unshelled almonds.
**NATIONAL****Tax Search, LLC************303  E Wacker  Drive, Suite 900****Chicago, IL 60601****(312)  233****-****6440**REPORT  ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE  COMMISSION'S REGULATION  AB SERVICING  CRITERIAFor  the  calendar year  ending December 31,  2014, National Tax Search, LLC  has  been  a  Tax  ServiceVendor  for **Wells  Fargo  Bank**(the "Servicer").National Tax Search, LLC ("NTS")  is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2014 and for  the period from January 1, 2014  through  December 31, 2014  (the  "Reporting  Period")  with  the servicing  criteria  set  forth  in Title  17,  Section  229.1122(d)  of  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  (the "CFR").   NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Only servicing criteria 1122 (d) (1)(ii), 1122 (d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122  (d)2(v),  1122(d)2(vi),    1122  (d)2(vii),  1122(d)(4)(xi),    and  1122(d)(4)(xii)    (the  "Applicable    Servicing Criteria")    are  applicable    to  the  activities  NTS  performs  with  respect    to  the  transactions    covered    by  this report.  NTS  has  determined  that  the  remaining  servicing  criteria  set  forth  in  Item  1122  (d)  of  the  SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs  with respect to the transactions covered by  this report. The transactions covered  by this  report  include  all  tax  payments  made on  behalf  of  the Servicer  using NTS's TaxQ system (the "Platform Transactions"). NTS, as a vendor, has assessed  its compliance  with the Applicable  Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period  and  has  concluded  that  the  NTS  has  complied,  in  all  material  respects,  with  the  Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2014 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions  taken as a whole. Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public  accounting firm,  has issued an attestation report on the  assessment  of  compliance  with  the  Applicable  Servicing  Criteria  as  of  December  31,  2014  and  for  the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion. National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to Servicer /s/ Lori D. Eshoo Lori  D. Eshoo,  President/CEO January  12, 2015
Exhibit No. 32.1
 Form 10-K
 August 31, 2009
 8888 Acquisition Corp.
 File No. 0-52251


Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of 8888 Acquisition Corp. (the ACompany@) on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the AReport@), I, Glenn A. Little, Chief Executive and 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.


Dated: September 18, 2009
By:
/s/ Glenn A. LittleGlenn A. LittleChief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to 8888 Acquisition Corp. and will be retained by 8888 Acquisition Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

GREGORY SCOTT, 

PLAINTIFF 

) 

VS. CASE NUMBER 2:06-CV-00654-MEF 

) 

NORMENT SECURITY GROUP, 

 DEFENDANT 

NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S REAFFIRMATION OF TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

 

Comes now Craig Izard, attorney for Plaintiff, who states that the Plaintiff has on this date 

agreed to reaffirm the terms of settlement and requests that this Honorable Court deem the 

outstanding motion to enforce same as moot. Plaintiff has notified the Defendant’s attorney’s office 

of Plaintiff’s position, and he anticipates filing a joint motion to dismiss this case in the near future. 

 /s/Craig Izard_________________ 

CRAIG IZARD 

Attorney at Law 

P.O. Box 130277 

Birmingham, AL 35213 

(205) 933-0119 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been served electronically upon 

opposing counsel, Bruce J. Downey III, on this the 20th day of July, 2007. 

 /s/Craig Izard____________________ 

Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 28 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### DEICHES v. WESTERN DEVELOPMENT CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by Maurice Deiches, as receiver, against the Western Development Company.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless appellant comply with terms stated in order. Order filed. See, also, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1088.
#### Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company *v.*Martin.

August 12, 1913.

Action for damages. Before Judge Fite. Gordon superior court. April 15, 1912.

*O. N. Starr*and *D. W. Blair,*for plaintiff in error.

*Maddox, McCamy & Shumate*and *T. W. Shelly,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

There was no abuse of discretion in granting a first new trial in this case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 905.84 Proceedings after termination. ( a ) Upon the termination of the provisions of this part, the then functioning members of the committee shall continue as joint trustees, for the purpose of liquidating the affairs of the committee, of all the funds and property then in the possession of or under control of committee, including claims for any funds unpaid or property not delivered at the time of such termination.
( b ) The said trustees ( 1 ) shall continue in such capacity until discharged by the Secretary,
( 2 ) shall, from time to time, account for all receipts and disbursements or deliver all property on hand, together with all books and records of the committee and of the joint trustees, to such person as the Secretary may direct; and
( 3 ) shall, upon the request of the Secretary, execute such assignments or other instruments necessary or appropriate to vest in such person full title and right to all of the funds, property, and claims vested in the committee, or the joint trustees pursuant to this part.
( c ) Any funds collected pursuant to § 905.41, over and above the amounts necessary to meet outstanding obligations and expenses necessarily incurred during the operation of this part and during the liquidation period, shall be returned to handlers as soon as practicable after the termination of this part. The refund to each handler shall be represented by the excess of the amount paid by him over and above his pro rata share of the expenses.
( d ) Any person to whom funds, property, or claims have been transferred or delivered by the committee or its members, pursuant to this section, shall be subject to the same obligations imposed upon the members of the committee and upon the said joint trustees.
[22 FR 10734, Dec. 27, 1957. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 42 FR 59371, Nov. 17, 1977]
#### Bullard & Woodson *et al. v.*Planters Warehouse &c. Co.

July 18, 1913.

Injunction. Before Judge Graham. Bleckley superior court. April 29,1913.

*H. F. Lawson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Saffold & Stallings,*contra.

Hill, J.

This case comes within the well-settled rule that the discretion of the judge of the superior court in granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction will not be interfered with, unless abused.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Evans, P. J., dissenting.*
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 403 Filed 10/17/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Skinner and Cook, Inc., Petitioner, v. Irving Saypol, a Justice of the Supreme Court, First Judicial District, Respondent.

Application for an order pursuant to article 78 denied; the cross motion to dismiss the petition granted, without costs and without disbursements; and the proceeding dismissed. No showing of grounds for disqualification is made *{Matter of Fitzgerald*v. *Wells,*9 A D 2d 812, mot. for Iv. to app. den., 7 N T 2d 711; *Matter of Handelman*v. *Saypol,*33 A D 2d 544). Concur — Stevens, P. J., McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.
§ 986.177 Reports of pecans received by handlers. ( a ) *Summary report.* Handlers shall submit to the Council, by the tenth day of the month, a summary report of inshell domestic pecans received, and all shipments, inventory, and committed inventory for pecans following the month of activity. Should the tenth day of the month fall on a weekend or holiday, reports are due by the first business day following the tenth day of the month. The report shall be submitted to the Council on APC Form 1 and contain the following information: ( 1 ) The name and address of the handler;
( 2 ) The month covered by the report;
( 3 ) The total weight and type of inshell pecans received during the reporting period;
( 4 ) The total weight and type of inshell pecans received year to date;
( 5 ) Assessments due on pecans received during the reporting period to be paid by the due date of the report;
( 6 ) The weight of all shipments of pecans, inshell and shelled, and inter-handler transfers shipped and received during the reporting period;
( 7 ) The weight of all shipments of pecans, inshell and shelled, and inter-handler transfers shipped and received in the previous month and year to date;
( 8 ) Total inventory held by handler;
( 9 ) All the inventory committed (pecans not shipped, but sold or otherwise obligated) whether for domestic sale or export; and,
( 10 ) The weight of all shelled or inshell pecans under contract for purchase from other handlers.
( b ) *Pecans purchased outside the United States and inshell pecans exported to Mexico for shelling and returned to the United States as shelled meats.* Handlers shall submit to the Council, by the tenth day of the month following the month of activity, a summary report of shelled and inshell pecans imported during the preceding month. Should the tenth day of the month fall on a weekend or holiday, reports are due by the first business day following the tenth day of the month. The report shall be submitted to the Council on APC Form 2 and contain the following information: ( 1 ) The name and address of the handler;
( 2 ) The month covered by the report;
( 3 ) The date the pecans were imported;
( 4 ) The country of origin;
( 5 ) The total weight of shelled and inshell pecans received, and the weight by variety for improved pecans received;
( 6 ) The weight of inshell pecans exported to Mexico for shelling;
( 7 ) The date shelled pecans returned to the United States after shelling in Mexico;
( 8 ) The weight of shelled pecans returned to the United States after shelling in Mexico; and
( 9 ) The total weight of inshell pecans exported to Mexico for shelling, and shelled pecans returned from Mexico, year to date.
[83 FR 7361, Feb. 21, 2018, as amended at 85 FR 19654, Apr. 8, 2020]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv736-WKW

)

SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN )

HUNDRED ($74,700) DOLLARS IN )

UNITED STATES CURRENCY, )

)

DEFENDANT. )

JOINT MOTION FOR TRIAL UPON SUBMITTED EVIDENCE AND BRIEFS

The United States of America (United States), by and through

Leura G. Canary, United States Attorney for the Middle District of

Alabama, and John T. Harmon, Assistant United States Attorney,

hereby submits the following:

1. A bench trial in this matter is currently set for October

15, 2007. The parties have reached an agreement to, upon Court

approval, submit all issues to the Court to be decided based upon

the transcript of the suppression hearing conducted on September 6,

2007, drug analysis reports on all drugs seized in this case and

briefs. No other evidence will be submitted. Written stipulations

to this effect have been executed and will be submitted to the

Court next week.

2. Accordingly, the parties would jointly move to continue

the October 15, 2007, trial date. The parties would further move

the Court to allow the United States to submit the aforementioned

transcript, the drug analysis reports and a trial brief on October

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 35-2 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
29, 2007, and to allow the Claimant to submit his trial brief on

the same date.

In compliance with CM/ECF Civil Administrative Procedure

II.C.3., the parties hereby certify that they have agreed to have

their names electronically signed to this Joint Motion.

FOR THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 LEURA G. CANARY

Date: 10-12-07 /s/John T. Harmon 

JOHN T. HARMON

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Plaintiff

United States of America

Date: 10-12-07 /s/Bruce S. Maddox 

BRUCE S. MADDOX

Attorney for Claimant George Edward

Jones, III

Address of Counsel:

For the United States:

Office of the United States Attorney

Middle District of Alabama

131 Clayton Street

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0197

Telephone: (334) 223-7280

Facsimile: (334) 223-7560

For Claimant:

6728 Taylor Court

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

Telephone: (334) 244-7333

Facsimile: (334) 260-9600

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 35-2 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### § 993.156 Application of reserve percentage.

The reserve obligation of each handler shall be determined by applying the reserve percentage to the weight of prunes in each lot, after deducting the weight of prunes in such lot shown as a percentage on the applicable inspection certificate as necessary to be removed therefrom pursuant to § 993.49(c), in such manner as may be prescribed in such reserve control regulation established for the crop year in which such lot is received by a handler from a producer or dehydrator.

[30 FR 13311, Oct. 20, 1965]
#### § 981.73 Periodic reports.

On or before January 15, and April 15, and August 15 of each crop year, each handler shall file with the Board a written report, certified to the Board and to the Secretary by such handler as to its completeness and correctness, showing as of the close of business on December 31, March 31, and July 31, respectively, such information as may be prescribed by the Board for use in redetermination of kernel weight and marketing policy considerations.

[35 FR 11372, July 16, 1970, as amended at 61 FR 32922, June 26, 1996]
#### § 927.23 Voting.

Only growers in attendance at meetings for election of nominees shall participate in the nomination of grower members and their alternates, and only handlers in attendance at meetings for election of nominees shall participate in the nomination of handler members and their alternates, and only processors in attendance for election of nominees shall participate in the nomination of processor members and their alternates. A grower may participate only in the election held in the district in which he or she produces pears, and a handler may participate only in the election held in the district in which he or she handles pears. Each person may vote as a grower, handler or processor, but not a combination thereof. Each grower, handler and processor shall be entitled to cast one vote, on behalf of himself, his agents, partners, affiliates, subsidiaries, and representatives, for each nominee to be elected.
#### Lang *v.*Montgomery.

October 14, 1913.

From Gordon superior court. Motion to dismiss.

*Harris & Harris,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. G. B. Erwin,*contra.

Hill, J.

1. “Where it appears that, the clerk of a trial court has failed to transmit to the Supreme Court, within the time prescribed by law, a bill of exceptions and transcript, and that the plaintiff in error or his attorney ‘has been the cause of the delay, . . by consent, direction, or procurement of any kind,’ the writ of error will be dismissed.” *Wheeler*v. *Crawford,*135 *Ga.*148 (69 S. E. 22) ; *Wilson*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*30 (52 S. E. 81) ; *Budden*v. *Brooks,*123 *Ga.*882 (51 S. E. 727); Civil Code, §§ 6185, 6186.

2. Accordingly, where a bill of exceptions was filed with the clerk of the trial court on October 11, 1912, but the bill of exceptions and transcript were not transmitted to the Supreme Court until November 13, 1912, because the plaintiff in error (who is also an attorney) held the papers in his office, as appears by the certificate of the clerk of the trial court, the bill of exceptions will be dismissed.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Temple Bnai Shalom of Great Neck, Appellant, v Village of Great Neck Estates et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted June 18, 2007;

decided September 6, 2007

Reported below, 32 AD3d 391.

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *900with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*8 NY3d 813],