alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C10,
  Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
  Series 2012-C10 (the Trust)

  I, Anthony Sfarra, a President of Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage
  Securities, Inc., the depositor into the above-referenced Trust, certify
  that:

  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports Form
    10-D required to be filed in respect of periods included in the year
    covered by this annual report, of the Trust;

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
    whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
    to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
    light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
    misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
    in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic report, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement
    in all material respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
    assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
    securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
    Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
    have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
    disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance
    described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
    10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
    CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. as Vendor for Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, Inc. a
    Division of PNC Bank, National Association as Special Servicer,
    National Tax Search, LLC as Vendor for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master
    Servicer and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC as Trust Advisor.

    Dated:   March 31, 2014


    /s/ Anthony Sfarra
    Signature

    President
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00074-CR

Deundra Michelle WILLIAMS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 277th Judicial District Court, Williamson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-916-K277

Honorable Ken Anderson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED and the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED October 16, 2013.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
§ 110.63 Order for revocation, suspension, or modification. ( a ) In response to an alleged violation described in § 110.60, the Commission may revoke, suspend, or modify a license by issuing an order: ( 1 ) Stating the violation and the effective date of the proposed enforcement action; and
( 2 ) Informing the licensee of his right, within 20 days or other specified time, to file a written answer and demand a hearing.
( b ) If an answer is not filed within the time specified, the enforcement action will become effective and permanent as proposed.
( c ) If a timely answer is filed, the Commission, after considering the answer, will issue an order dismissing the proceeding, staying the effectiveness of the order or taking other appropriate action.
( d ) The order may be made effective immediately, with reasons stated, pending further hearing and order, when the Commission determines that the violation is willful or that the public health, safety, or interest so requires.
EXHIBIT 35.4

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

American Express Centurion Bank

American Express Issuance Trust II

Reporting Period January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013

The undersigned, a duly
authorized officer of American Express Centurion Bank (AECB), a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (TRS), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Supplemental Servicing Agreement,
dated as of March 12, 2013, among TRS, AECB, American Express Bank, FSB, and American Express Receivables Financing Corporation VIII LLC (as amended from time to time, the Agreement), does hereby certify that:

1. AECB performs certain servicing procedures on behalf of TRS under the Agreement.

2. The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Certificate.

3. A review of
AECBs activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

4. To the
best of my knowledge, based on such review, AECB has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
20thday of March, 2014.



|                                |  |                                        
|------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK
|                                | 
|By:                             |  | /s/ Kevin L. Thompson                  
|Name:                           |  | Kevin L. Thompson                      
|Title:                          |  | Chief Financial Officer                
|                                | 
|By:                             |  | /s/ Paul A. Thompson                   
|Name:                           |  | Paul A. Thompson                       
|Title:                          |  | Vice President  Controller, US Banking
#### §§ 989.154-989.156 [Reserved]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PRINCE DAVIS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 308 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Universal Gold Mining Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Cather, Interim Chief Executive 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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/ David CatherName:
David CatherTitle:
Interim Chief Executive OfficerDate:
March 31, 2011
**McGladrey**************************McGladrey LLP**************Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**To the Board of Directors Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Assessment of 2014 Compliance with Applicable Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (Management's Assertion), that Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Regulation AB for services by the Company that are encompassed by contractual obligations to perform Regulation AB reporting (the Platform), including only those asset-backed securities transactions defined below, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, excluding the following criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(1)(i-iv), 1122(d)(2)(i-vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C-D) 1122(d)(3)(ii-iv), 1122(d)(4)(i-vi) and 1122(d)(4)(viii-xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Appendix B to management's assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by 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, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above 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 Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. /s/ McGladrey LLP Irvine, California March 4, 2015
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3381

_____________________________

CHRISTOPHER DEMETRIUS 

SIMPKINS JR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

May 21, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
§ 205.80 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This subpart establishes the procedures for the filing of a formal request for an interpretation and for the consideration of such request. Responses, which may include verbal or written responses to general inquiries or to other than formal written requests for interpretation filed with the General Counsel or his delegate or a Regional Counsel, are not interpretations and merely provide general information.
( b ) A request for interpretation that includes, or could be construed to include an application for an exception or an exemption may be treated solely as a request for interpretation and processed as such.
(Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-159, as amended, Pub. L. 93-511, Pub. L. 94-99, Pub. L. 94-133, Pub. L. 94-163, and Pub. L. 94-385, Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, as amended, Pub. L. 94-385, Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163, as amended, Pub. L. 94-385; E.O. 11790, 39 FR 23185; Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91; E.O. 12009, 42 FR 46267)
[39 FR 35489, Oct. 1, 1974, as amended at 43 FR 14437, Apr. 6, 1978]
§ 1050.204 Advance approval for acceptance of gifts or decorations. ( a ) If an employee is advised that a gift of more than minimal value as described in § 1050.202 (b) or (c) is to be tendered to him or her, the employee shall, if time permits, request the written advice of the Directorate of Administration regarding the appropriateness of accepting or refusing the gift. A request for approval shall be submitted to the Directorate of Administration in writing, stating the nature of the gift and the reasons for which it is being tendered. The Directorate of Administration shall consult with Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and the appropriate General Counsel in connection with advising the employee. If such advice cannot be obtained and refusal of the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely effect the foreign relations of the United States, the gift may be accepted, but the Directorate of Administration shall be informed as soon as possible. In either event, the employee shall proceed as provided in §§ 1050.202 and 1050.301 of this part.
( b ) Where an employee is notified of the intent of a foreign government to award him a decoration for outstanding or unusually meritorious service, approval required under § 1050.203 should be obtained prior to acceptance of the award. A request for approval shall be submitted to the Directorate of Administration in writing, stating the nature of the decoration and the reasons for which it is being awarded. The Directorate of Administration shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and the appropriate General Counsel. If time does not permit the employee to obtain approval for the award of the decoration before its receipt, the employee may accept it, but shall seek such approval immediately thereafter.
# 12.504 Applicability of certain laws to subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services.

(S-90) For the purposes of flowdown requirements pursuant to Part 12, treat Distribution and Pricing Agreements (DAPA) as subcontracts (reference FAR 52.212-5(e) and 52.244‐6(c)).

**Parent topic:**SUBPART 12.5 – APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN LAWS TO THE ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES
Case 2:06-cv-00752-MHT-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00752-MHT-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00752-MHT-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00752-MHT-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 4 of 4
3016.603-4 Contract clauses.

The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as (HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.216–74,

Settlement of Letter Contract, in all definitized letter contracts.

Parent topic: Subpart 3016.6—Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts
#### James C. Oliver, Appellant, v. Samuel Schreiber et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Thomas E. Rose et al., Appellants, v. Samuel Schreiber et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

In consolidated negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 23, 1967, in favor of defendants, upon ,a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. The findings of fact below are affirmed. In our opinion the undisputed evidence established the negligent .operation of the automobile by the defendant driver; and the jury’s verdict in favor of defendants can only be supported by findings (1) that the plaintiff passengers were contributorily negligent in riding in the automobile by reason of the defendant driver’s intoxication to the extent that *it*impaired his driving ability and (2) that the plaintiff passengers knew, or should have known, that this was so. In these circumstances we hold it was error to exclude the traffic accident report of the police officer who arrived at the scene five minutes after the accident. Although the officer did not witness the accident, the information contained in his report was given to him by the defendant driver. The officer’s statement in the report that the defendant driver’s condition was *“*Apparently Normal ” related to a matter within the officer’s own observation while carrying out his police duties; and, as such, it was admissible on the issue of the intoxication of the defendant driver (cf. *Kelly*v. *Wassermam,*5 N Y 2d 425; *Felska*v. *New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R. R. Co.,*152 N. Y. 339, 344; *Yeargans*v. *Yeargans,*24 A D 2d 280, 282; *Burnell*v. *La Fountain,*6 A D 2d 586, 590-591; *Trbovich*v. *Burke,*234 App. Div. 384). In view of the closeness of this issue, the erroneous exclusion of this portion of the police report requires a new trial. Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur; Christ, Acting P. J., and Brennan, J., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4958

DONALD DUANE COLE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.

Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge.

(CR-95-16)

Submitted: April 3, 2002

Decided: May 9, 2002

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Lisa

A. Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Donald Duane Cole appeals the district court’s order revoking his

term of supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months’

imprisonment. Cole’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.

Cole was informed of his opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

Cole claims that the district court abused its discretion in imposing

a twenty-four month sentence because it exceeded the recommended

sentencing range of six to twelve months set out in U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual ("USSG") § 7B1.4(a) (2000). We review the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for abuse of discretion. United

States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). 

Based on our review of the record, we find the district court did not

abuse its discretion in sentencing Cole to the statutory maximum sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment. The sentencing ranges

contained in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines are "non-binding, advisory guides to district courts in supervised release revocation proceedings." Davis, 53 F.3d at 642; see also United States v. Holmes, ___

F.3d ___, 2002 WL 441198, *1 (8th Cir. Mar. 22, 2002). 

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and

find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s order. This court requires that counsel inform her

client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served

on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. COLE
§ 13.37 Initial decision. ( a ) The ALJ shall issue an initial decision based only on the record, which shall contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the amount of any penalties and assessments imposed.
( b ) The findings of fact shall include a finding on each of the following issues: ( 1 ) Whether the claims or statements identified in the complaint, or any portions thereof, violate § 13.3; and
( 2 ) If the person is liable for penalties or assessments, the appropriate amount of any such penalties or assessments considering any mitigating or aggravating factors that he or she finds in the case, such as those described in § 13.31.
( c ) The ALJ shall promptly serve the initial decision on all parties within 90 days after the time for submission of post-hearing briefs and reply briefs (if permitted) has expired. The ALJ shall at the same time serve all parties with a statement describing the right of any defendant determined to be liable for a civil penalty or assessment to file a motion for reconsideration with the ALJ or a notice of appeal with the authority head. If the ALJ fails to meet the deadline contained in this paragraph, he or she shall notify the parties of the reason for the delay and shall set a new deadline.
( d ) Unless the initial decision of the ALJ is timely appealed to the authority head, or a motion for reconsideration of the initial decision is timely filed, the initial decision shall constitute the final decision of the authority head and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after it is issued by the ALJ.
#### § 923.68 Agents.

The Secretary may, by designation in writing, name any officer or employee of the United States, or name any agency or division in the United States Department of Agriculture, to act as his agent or representative in connection with any of the provisions of this part.
308.803 Solicitation provision and contract clause.       The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.208-70, Printing and Duplication, in all solicitations, contracts, and orders over the simplified acquisition threshold, unless printing or increased duplication is authorized by statute.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 308.8 - Acquisition of Printing and Related Supplies
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRY DEESE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv643-MHT

) 

CHAMPION ENTERPRISES, )

INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to extend deadline

(doc. no. 30) is granted.

DONE, this the 22nd day of March, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 31 Filed 03/22/2007 Page 1 of 1