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

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

American Express Travel Related Services
Company, Inc.

American Express Issuance Trust II

Reporting Period January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015

The undersigned, a duly authorized
representative of American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (TRS), as Servicer pursuant to the American Express Issuance Trust II (the Trust) Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 12, 2013
(as so amended and restated and as otherwise amended from time to time, the Agreement),among American Express Receivables Financing Corporation VIII LLC, as transferor, TRS, as servicer (in such capacity, the Servicer), and
The Bank of New York Mellon, as indenture trustee (the Trustee), does hereby certify that:

1. TRS is Servicer under the
Agreement.

2. The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate.

3. A review of the Servicer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, the Servicer 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 28thday of March, 2016



|                                                       |  |               
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------
|AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC.
|                                                       | 
|By:                                                    |  | /s/ J J Anand 
|Name:                                                  |  | J J Anand     
|Title:                                                 |  | Vice President
**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 connectionwith the accompanying Quarterly Report of Greene County Bancshares, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the “Report”), I,R. Stan Puckett, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation 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 hasbeen provided to Greene County Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by GreeneCounty Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

 
| Date:  | August 6,  2003                                    |   | /s/ | R. Stan  Puckett |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|-----|------------------|--------|
|   | R. Stan  Puckett                                   |
|   | Chairman of  the Board and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
Subpart 1546.7 - Warranties

Parent topic: PART 1546 - QUALITY ASSURANCE

1546.704 Authority for use of warranties.

The Contracting Officer shall ensure that the use of a warranty clause in a contract has the

concurrence of the Project Officer.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 2:06-mj-0069-DRB

)

HECTOR SILVA )

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL

For good cause shown in the Notice of Compliance with Court’s Order and Notice of

Appearance, filed on August 2, 2006 (Doc. 28), it is 

ORDERED that Assistant Federal Defender Donnie W. Bethel is appointed to represent

Defendant Hector Silva in all proceedings in this cause of action. 

DONE this 3 day of August, 2006. rd

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 29 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 1 of 1
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1530

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Moses Anthon Francisco, also known as Moses Francisco Cruz, also known as Slick

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

___________________________

No. 20-1531

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Moses Anthon Francisco, also known as Moses Francisco Cruz, also known as

Slick, also known as Moses Anthony Francisco lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

___________________________

No. 20-1532

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appelleev. Moses Anthon Francisco lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Western

____________ Submitted: November 23, 2020 Filed: December 7, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Moses Francisco appeals the above-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to immigration and firearm offenses--instituted by separate indictments--and his supervised release for a prior offense was revoked. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. -2-Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion by departing upward from the Guidelines, and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (departures from sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion; in determining whether to depart upward, court should consider nature and extent of criminal history); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors; this court must give due deference to district court’s determination that § 3553(a) factors justify upward variance). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel's motions to withdraw.

______________________________

-3-
#### § 987.55 Outlets for restricted dates.

Restricted dates may be disposed of only through exportation to such countries as the Committee may approve or by diversion in product outlets described in § 987.43 which the Committee concludes to be appropriate and which will result in dates moving into consumption in a form other than that of whole or pitted dates. To facilitate sales and promote orderly marketing of any variety of restricted dates handled in export, the Committee may participate in or negotiate for handlers, the sale of such dates to meet all or a substantial part of the needs of the particular country, and, in connection with each such sale, the Committee shall extend to all handlers an opportunity to participate therein and shall distribute the returns therefrom to participating handlers according to their respective contributions of dates. The Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may prescribe rules and regulations governing the opportunity to participate in such sales. The provisions of this section shall not preclude restricted dates being disposed of in outlets for utility and cull dates prescribed in § 987.56.

[43 FR 4253, Feb. 1, 1978]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

December 29, 2006

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: May's Distributing Company, Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc. et al 

Case Number: 2:06-cv-00702-MEF

This Notice of Correction was filed in the referenced case this date to properly attach the

proposed intervenor complaint and exhibits to the motion for leave to intervene. 

Reference is made to document # 60 filed on December 28, 2006. 

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 65 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 1 of 1
§ 110.44 Physical security standards. ( a ) Physical security measures in recipient countries must provide protection at least comparable to the recommendations in the current version of IAEA publication, “Nuclear Security Recommendations on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities” (INFCIRC/225/Revision 5), January 2011, which is incorporated by reference in this part. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Notice of any changes made to the material incorporated by reference will be published in the Federal Register. Copies of INFCIRC/225/Revision 5 may be obtained from the Marketing and Sales Unit, Publishing Section, IAEA, Vienna International Centre, P.O. Box 100, 1400 Vienna Austria; Fax: 43 1 2600 29302; telephone: 43 1 2600 22417; email: *sales.publications@iaea.org*; Web site: *http://www.iaea.org/books .* You may inspect a copy at the NRC Library, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738, telephone: 301-415-4737 or 1-800-397-4209, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html .*
( b ) Commission determinations on the adequacy of physical security measures are based on: ( 1 ) Receipt by the appropriate U.S. Executive Branch Agency of written assurances from the relevant recipient country government that physical security measures providing protection at least comparable to the recommendations set forth in INFCIRC/225/Revision 5.
( 2 ) Information obtained through country visits, information exchanges, or other sources. Determinations are made on a country-wide basis and are subject to continuing review. Appendix M to this part describes the different categories of nuclear material to which physical security measures are applied.
[75 FR 44090, July 28, 2010, as amended at 79 FR 39291, July 10, 2014]
EX-33.11
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Document Custody
1015 10th Avenue Southeast
Minneapolis, MN 55414


ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA


Management of the Document Custody Section of the Corporate Trust Services
division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Company") is
responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Management has determined that the servicing criteria are applicable in regard
to the servicing platform for the period as follows:

Platform:
Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed
securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January
1, 2006 for which the Company provides document custody services, excluding any
such securities issued by any agency or instrumentality of the U.S. government
(other than the Federal Deposit Insurance Company) or any government sponsored
entity (the "Platform").


Period:  As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2012 (the "Period").

Applicable Servicing Criteria:

The servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and
1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities performed by the Company with
respect to the Platform (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). Management of
the Company has determined that all other servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d) are not applicable to the Platform.


With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company's management provides
the following assertion of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

1. The Company's management is responsible for assessing the Company compliance
with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

2. The Company management has assessed the Company compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria. In performing this assessment, management used
the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph
(d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.

3. Based on such assessment as of and for the Period, the Company has complied,
in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report with respect to management's assertion of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.


WELLS FARGO BANK, National Association

By:    /s/ Shari Gillund
       Shari L. Gillund

Title: Senior Vice President

Dated: February 15, 2013


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Subpart 2003.1 - Safeguards

Parent topic: PART 2003 - IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST

2003.101-3 Agency regulations.

Standards of conduct for Federal employees are published in 5 CFR parts 2635 and 5801.

Requirements for financial disclosure are published in 5 CFR part 2634.
# Subpart 1811.4—Delivery or Performance Schedules

**Parent topic:**PART 1811—DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS

## 1811.404-70 NASA contract clauses.

The clause at 1852.211–70, Packaging, Handling, and Transportation, must be included in solicitations and contracts for deliverable items, including software, designated as Class I (mission essential), Class II (delicate or sensitive), or Class III (requires special handling or monitoring).
§ 140.17 Special provisions applicable to licensees furnishing financial protection in whole or in part in the form of liability insurance. In any case where a licensee undertakes to maintain financial protection in the form of liability insurance for all or part of the financial protection required by this part, ( a ) The Commission may require proof that the organization or organizations which have issued such policies are legally authorized to issue them and do business in the United States and have clear ability to meet their obligations; and
( b ) At least 30 days prior to the termination of any such policy, the licensee shall notify the Commission of the renewal of such policy or shall file other proof of financial protection.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

BELINDA GAIL BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv710-MHT

) 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Because of a scheduling conflict, it is ORDERED that

the uniform scheduling order is amended to reflect that

the pretrial will be on August 14, 2007, with all

deadlines tied to the pretrial date adjusted accordingly.

DONE, this the 8th day of June, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00710-MHT-TFM Document 19 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### § 993.18 Grade.

*Grade* means the classification of prunes for quality and condition according to the grading specifications established pursuant to the provisions of this subpart.
§ 1047.5 Exercise of arrest authority—general guidelines. ( a ) In making an arrest, the protective force officer should announce his or her authority (e.g., “Security Officer”) and that the person is under arrest prior to taking the person into custody. If the circumstances are such that making such announcements would be useless or dangerous to the officer or others, the protective force officer may dispense with these announcements.
( b ) The protective force officer at the time and place of arrest may search any arrested person for weapons and criminal evidence and the area into which the arrested person might reach for a weapon or to destroy evidence. Guidance on the proper conduct and limitations in scope of search and seizure of evidence shall be obtained from the local DOE Office of Chief Counsel, in coordination with contractor legal counsel, as appropriate.
( c ) After the arrest is effected, the arrested person shall be advised of his or her constitutional right against self-incrimination (Miranda warnings). If the circumstances are such that making such advisement is dangerous to the officer or others, this requirement may be postponed until the immediate danger has passed.
( d ) Custody of the person arrested should be transferred to other federal law enforcement personnel (i.e., U.S. Marshals or FBI agents) or to LLEA personnel, as appropriate, as soon as practicable. The arrested person should not be questioned or required to sign written statements unless: ( 1 ) Questioning is necessary for security or safety reasons (e.g., questioning to locate a bomb), or
( 2 ) Questioning is authorized by other federal law enforcement personnel or LLEA officers responsible for investigating the crime.
Case 3:06-cv-00631-MHT-VPM Document 7-2 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-cr-200-WHA 

)

ROSA E. RINCON )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Motion for Leave to Dismiss Count Two of the Indictment as to

Rosa E. Rincon, heretofore filed in the above styled cause, and for good cause shown, the Court is

of the opinion that the motion should be and the same hereby is granted. It is, therefore,

CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that said motion be and

the same is hereby granted.

DONE this 4th day of December, 2006.

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

 W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DISMISSAL OF COUNT TWO OF THE INDICTMENT

Comes now the United States of America with leave of the Court first had and obtained and

dismisses Count Two of the Indictment heretofore filed in the above styled cause as to Rosa E.

Rincon.

Respectfully submitted,

LEURA GARRETT CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Christopher A. Snyder

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0197

334.223.7280

334.223.7135 fax

christopher.a.snyder@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 88 Filed 12/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Thomas J. Valentine, Respondent, v. Carl J. Rocco, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating appellant and respondent -Marian D. Rocco as candidates in the Republican Party Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969 for the Party position of member of the Westchester Republican County Committee from the 4th Election District of the 2d Ward of the City of New Rochelle, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 10, 1969, which *inter alia*invalidated appellant’s designating petitions. Order affirmed insofar as it invalidated appellant’s designating petitions, without costs. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
#### Brotherton *v.*Stricklin.

Hill, J.

1. The defendant in a suit for breach of promise of marriage was offered as a witness in his own behalf, to contradict certain witnesses for the plaintiff, who had testified “as to conversations these witnesses had with plaintiff since the alleged breach of the alleged prom*611ise of marriage.” The court declined to allow the defendant to testify, and error is assigned on this ruling. What the witnesses for the plaintiff testified is not set out in the assignment, nor what the defendant would have testified. *Held,*that this is not a good assignment of error. 1 Michie’s Dig. Ga. R. 636; 15 Ib. 192.

September 26, 1913.

Action for breach of promise of marriage. Before Judge Fite. Catoosa superior court. May 6, 1912.

*Maddox, McCamy & Shumate,*for plaintiff in error.

*Foust & Payne*and *W. F. Mann,*contra.

2. The charges of the court complained of are not erroneous for any of the reasons assigned. The verdict is supported by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices coneu/r.*
Executive Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Cascade Microtech, Inc. 
 2010 Executive Compensation
Plan 
 for the Six-Month Period Ending June 30, 2010 
 Executive Officer Participants 
  

			
	Steven Sipowicz	 	Chief Financial Officer
	Eric Strid	 	Chief Technology Officer
	Steve Harris	 	VP, Engineering
	Paul O’Mara	 	VP, Sales and Customer Support
	Mike Kondrat	 	VP, Marketing
	Anand Nambiar	 	VP, Operations

 Performance Criteria 
 Target payouts for the participants will be based on a percentage of their base salaries, with the amount of the payout determined based on attainment of
planned levels of EBITDAS and the accomplishment of individual goals and objectives, with 50 percent of the payout, if any, based on EBITDAS performance and 50 percent based on goals and objectives performance. For the VP, Sales and Customer
Support, the amount of the payout, if any, will be determined based on attainment of planned levels of EBITDAS and bookings, and the accomplishment of individual goals and objectives, with 25 percent based on EBITDAS performance, 25 percent based on
bookings performance, and 50 percent based on goals and objectives performance. 
 Payout 
 The payout for the EBITDAS portion will be zero for EBITDAS below 50 percent of the EBITDAS target and 100 percent of the target payout at 100 percent of
the EBITDAS target, with amounts in between determined based on a linear function. The payout with respect to EBITDAS in excess of 100 percent of target will be determined based on the same linear function with a cap of 200 percent of the payout
target. The payout for the goals and objectives portion will be determined based on a goals and objectives score that takes into account relative importance of the goals and other success criteria. The payout for the bookings portion will be linear
from zero to 100 percent of the target, with a cap of 120 percent of the target. The payout, if any, with respect to the achievement of targets will be made in the form of cash or restricted stock units vesting over two years at the discretion of
the Management Development and Compensation Committee.
§ 1017.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part implements section 148 of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2168) which prohibits the unauthorized dissemination of certain unclassified Government information. This information identified by the term “Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information” (UCNI) consists of certain design and security information concerning nuclear facilities, nuclear materials, and nuclear weapons.
( b ) This part: ( 1 ) Provides for the review of information prior to its designation as UCNI;
( 2 ) Describes how information is determined to be UCNI;
( 3 ) Establishes minimum physical protection standards for documents and material containing UCNI;
( 4 ) Specifies who may have access to UCNI; and,
( 5 ) Establishes a procedure for the imposition of penalties on persons who violate section 148 of the Atomic Energy Act or any regulation or order of the Secretary issued under section 148 of the Atomic Energy Act, including this part.
( c ) This part does not apply to information controlled under 10 U.S.C. 128 by the Department of Defense.