alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1442.602 Assignment and location.       The BPC has the authority to approve the appointment of a Corporate Administrative Contracting Officer.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1442.6 - Corporate Administrative Contracting Officer
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust ServicesMAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. 

c/o Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

375 Park Avenue 2nd floor

J0127-023

New York, New York 10152-023

 

 

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities

Inc. Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2012-C10 

Series 2012-C10

 

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2012 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting  Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

 

February 26, 2015

 

/s/  Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH 

Vice President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  |
|------------------------|--|
EX-35 (e)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 14, 2007

Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage
Loan Trust, Series 2006-AR5


Per Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 10/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:


(A)  a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
     portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or
     such other applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function
     Participant, has been made under such officer's supervision and

(B)  to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of any such Servicing Function
     Participant, in all material respects throughout such year or portion
     thereof, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in
     any material respect, specifying each such failure known to such officer
     and the nature and status thereof.



Certified By:
/s/ Reid Denny
Reid Denny, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN BONNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv715-MHT

) 

NORINCO a/k/a CHINA NORTH )

INDUSTRIES CORP., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED as follows:

(1) Defendant Qiqihar Hawk Industries Co., Ltd.’s

motion for leave to file reply brief (Doc. No.

85) is granted. 

(2) Said defendant is allowed until March 21, 2008,

to file a reply brief.

DONE, this the 12th day of March, 2008.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 87 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 1 of 1
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 13.0 $1,105.0

0

$0 $1,105.00 502 $554,710.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 4

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $554,710

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Splice Repair 93.0 $7,905.00 $17,759 $25,664.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 3 of 3
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 206 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of Garner, North Carolina. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2005 

Mr. ETHERIDGE (for himself, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, Mr. PRICE of 

North Carolina, Mr. COBLE, Mr. WATT, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. JONES of 

North Carolina, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, and Mr. MCHENRY) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government 

Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of Garner, North 

Carolina. 

Whereas, in 2005, Garner, North Carolina, will celebrate the 

100th anniversary of its founding; 

Whereas history shows that there were settlers in the area 

before the Revolutionary War, including documentation 

of a church in the Panther Branch Township in 1756; 

Whereas, in 1905, community leaders applied to the North 

Carolina General Assembly for a town charter, which was 

granted on April 16th, 1905; 

Whereas the first business in Garner is said to have been a 

wood shop owned by Henry Fort, an African-American 
2 

•HRES 206 IH 

cabinet maker whose work is still in use in many local 

homes; 

Whereas Garner has grown to become a dynamic, thriving 

community; and 

Whereas, on April 16, 2005, Garner will celebrate its achievements and culture with a Centennial Day Celebration: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the 100th anniversary of Garner, North Carolina. 

Æ
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 filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of The ExOne Company (the Company) for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2012, with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 31, 2013



/s/ S. Kent RockwellS. Kent Rockwell Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


May 31, 2013



/s/ John IrvinJohn Irvin Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)
# Subpart 5211.1 - SELECTING AND DEVELOPING REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENTS

**Parent topic:**Part 5211 - DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS

## 5211.103 Market acceptance.

(a) The contracting officer is authorized to require offerors to demonstrate that an item meets the market acceptance criteria.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60378 Summary Calendar

__________________ LUTHER COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus EDWARD HARGETT, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:91-CV-093-D

- - - - - - - - - - February 21, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’ and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Luther Coleman appeals from the district court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He argues that he was denied an impartial jury because a high percentage of the venire consisted of law enforcement personnel or their relatives, that the state court failed to exclude inculpatory statements made by Coleman without a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights, that the state court improperly admitted evidence absent proof of the chain of custody, and that his conviction should be reversed because of cumulative error. We have reviewed the arguments and the record and perceive no reversible error. Because there is no error, we reject Coleman's cumulative error argument. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Coleman's petition for essentially the reasons stated by the district court.No. 95-60378 -2- AFFIRMED.
Department of the Treasury – Internal Revenue Service

Announcement 2004-46

Settlement Initiative Declaration

Form 13586-A

(May 2004)

Please complete the following information, sign and date this Declaration and return it along with the information requested in

Letter 3873. A self-addressed envelope has been provided for your convenience.

Section 1. Taxpayer Data

1. Taxpayer name(s) 2. Taxpayer(s) identification

3. Address (Street, City, State, ZIP code) 4. Daytime telephone number

5. FAX number

6. Total tax benefits claimed on return (See Form 13586, Section III, Line 6.)

7. Net out of pocket costs (See Form 13586, Section IV, Line 7.)

8. Elected method for handling "Net Out of Pocket" costs ("x" appropriate box.)

a. 100% Long-Term Capital Loss b. 50% Ordinary Loss

Section II. Taxpayer Attestation

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that Form(s) 13586, the accompanying

statements and documents provided are, to the best of my knowledge and belief,

true, correct, and complete.

Signature of Taxpayer Date

Signature of Taxpayer Date

Catalog No. 38577S Form 13586-A (5-2004)

number (EIN or SSN)

www.irs.gov

( )

( )
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6584

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC RICHARDSON, a/k/a Father,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00288-JKB-28)

Submitted: July 26, 2018 Decided: July 31, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Richardson seeks to appeal his conviction and 180-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 

controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). In criminal cases, the 

defendant must file the notice of appeal within 14 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or 

good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to 30 days to file a notice of 

appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 

1985). 

The district court entered the criminal judgment on December 2, 2010. 

Richardson noted his appeal from this judgment more than seven years later, on May 15, 

2018. Since Richardson failed to file a timely notice of appeal, and because he has 

previously attacked his criminal judgment in two unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motions, see United States v. Richardson, 703 F. App’x 197 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 17-

7132); United States v. Richardson, 529 F. App’x 342 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 13-6687), we 

exercise our inherent authority to dismiss this appeal sua sponte. See United States v. 

Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 128 (4th Cir. 2017) (holding that this court should sua sponte 

dismiss an untimely criminal appeal when the appeal is filed “after the defendant has 

completed collateral review of the same judgment”).
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### §§ 1041.104-1041.109 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. )

)

OSCAR MARTINEZ -RAMIREZ ) CR. NO. 1:06cr201-WHA

O R D E R

The defendant has been found guilty of a criminal offense in accordance with the

Constitution and laws of the United States. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. That sentencing of the defendant be, and the same is, hereby set on March 21, 2007, at

9:00 a.m. in the Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street,

Montgomery, Alabama.

2. That in accordance with Rule 32(f)(1), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, on or

before February 28, 2007, the defendant and the Government shall communicate in writing to the

probation officer, and to each other, any objections they have as to any material information,

sentencing classifications, sentencing guideline ranges, and policy statements contained in or

omitted from the presentence report.

3. That, unless excused in writing by the Chief U.S. Probation Officer of this district,

counsel for the parties shall be available for a conference with the probation officer on March 6,

2007, at 10:00 a.m., to discuss and resolve, if possible, factual and legal issues contained in the

presentence report. If the probation officer determines or if any of the parties request that a personal

meeting be held to resolve the issues, such meeting shall be at the U.S. Probation Office, One

Church Street, Montgomery, AL, on the above date and time. Such request for a personal

conference shall be made to the probation officer within five (5) calendar days after receipt of the

presentence report. Otherwise, the conference shall be held telephonically. Any motion for

downward departure shall be filed on or before the conference date with the probation officer, unless

based on unknown and unforseen circumstances arising after that date, in which case the motion

must be filed promptly upon discovery of such circumstances. 

Nothing contained in this Order shall be construed as impairing the rights of any party as

established in the Constitution or laws of the United States.

DONE this 9th day of January , 2007.

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 35 Filed 01/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. AN DR E W C OL S ON , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 10287 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 3 - CR- 0 0 5 5 9 - RCJ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R obe r tC l i ve J one s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J ul y 19, 2010 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an d W A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A n d r e w Co l s o n ap p e a l s f r o m th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s o r d e rg r a n t i n g h i s 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) mo t i o n f

o rs e n t e n c e r e d u c t i o n . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f

f ir m . C ol son con t ends thatthe di stri ctcourtre l i ed on i m perm i ss i bl e f ac t ors w hen 

# FI LED AU G 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 10287 2 i tdet erm i ned thathe po se d a po t ent i al dang ert o the com m un i ty. T he di stri ctcourt di d note rrw he n i tr e l i e d on C ol s on’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory , the na tur e a nd c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e o f f e n s e , a n d a p r is o n d is c ip lin a ry v io la tio n . See D i l lon v. U ni ted Stat es , N o . 0 9 - 6 3 3 8 , 2 0 1 0 W L 2 4 0 0 1 0 9 a t * 6 - 7 ( J u n . 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 ) ; U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1. 10 , cm t . 1(B )( i i i ). C ol son al so cont ends thateven i f the fa ct ors r el i ed up on by the di stri ctcourt w er e perm i ss i bl e, re m and i s app ropri at e s o thatthi s c ou rtm ayprov i de the di stri ct c our tw i th gui da nc e a s t o w ha tf a c t or s i tm a y c ons i de rw he n appl y i ng the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes “ P ub l i c S af ety C on si dera t i on ” pol i cyst at em entart i cul at ed i n U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 10 . B ec ause the di stri ctcourtre l i ed up on perm i ss i bl e f ac t ors a n y g u id a n c e w o u ld c o n s titu te a n im p r o p e ra d v is o ry o p in io n . See U ni ted Stat es v. Kaczy nski , 55 1 F . 3d 11 20 , 11 24 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). AF F I RME D.
#### Spencer *v.*Mayor and Council of Gainesville.

September 29, 1913.

Action for damages. Before Judge Jones. Hall superior court. May 17, 1913. '

*B. P. Gaillard*and *J. G. Collins,*for plaintiff.

*William M. Johnson,*for defendant.

Atkinson, J.

1. Properly construed, this was an action of trespass “quare clausum fregit,” for damages caused by blasting in the defendant’s quarry, causing stones to fall on adjacent lands of the plaintiff, injuring his buildings and other property thereon, and by dumping dirt and other substances into a branch, which separated the quarry from plaintiff’s other land, causing the branch lower down to change its course as it ran through plaintiff’s land, and also to fill up plaintiff’s mill-pond with debris; and not for damages arising from any negligence in the manner in which the work was done.

2. The quarry was located on a designated tract of land. Defendant held under a deed from plaintiff. After reciting the consideration, the deed purported to convey “all the rock and stone, both surface and subsurface, located on” the described land. It also contained the recital: “Party of the first part further grants, aliens, and conveys to party of the second part, and its successors and assigns, the right and easement to use said land in any way .whatever that may be necessary or expedient to quarry, blast, crush, and remove all of said stone and rock; provided no convict camp or tenant houses shall be placed on said ten acres of land.” *Meld,*that the grant and covenant above quoted authorized blasting, and the mere fact that the stones fell upon plaintiff’s adjacent land and injured his property would not render defendant liable in trespass for the injury. See Casselberry *v.*Ames, 13 Mo. App. 575; Arthur *v.*Henry, 157 N. C. 393 (73 S. E. 206) ; Scott *v.*Bay, 3 Md. 431.

*(a)*This case differs from *Moross & Co.*v. *Burke,*99 *Ga.*110 (24 S. E. 969), and Central Iron & Coal Co. *v.*Vandenheuk, 147 Ala. 546 (41 So. 145, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 570, 119 Am. St. R. 102, 11 Ann. Cas. 346), where the plaintiff had not consented to the blasting.

3. Considered in the light of the entire charge, and the issues as made in the pleadings and evidence, the excerpts from the charge complained of in the motion afford no cause for the grant of a new trial.

4. Under the circumstances of the case, there was no error in refusing to declare a mistrial.

5. The verdict is supported by the evidence, and the discretion of the trial judge in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices aoneur.*
RETURN

Case 2:O6 . cr-OO193. .ciF-CSC Document 58 Filed 06t i2007 Page 2 of 6

AG 245B (Rev. 06/05) Judgment in Criminal Case

Sheet 2 - Imprisonment

Judgment—Page 2 of 6

DEFENDANT: JOSHUA WAYNE HESTER

CASE NUMBER: 2;06CR193-MEF

IMPRISONMENT

- --

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau oiPristhi t be imprisoned for a

total term of:

Two hundred ninety two (292) months.

XThe court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:

The Court recommends that defendant be designated to a facility where mental health treatment is availab1e

The Court further recommends that defendant be designated to a facility where sex offender treatment is available.

XThe defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

L:lThe defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

Eat ______________________ LI am. Li p.m. on

Li as notified by the United States Marshal.

LiThe defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons:

Li before 2 p.m. on

Li as notified by the United States Marshal.

[I as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

I have executed this judgment as follows: Ci.

MDLE DST. OF ILA.

Defendantdelivered on ____________________________________ to LA..5,' fr^1-/4.-

at /, c / , with a certified copy of this judgment.

L-- ,4

•HfFEEdI.&FEf -tt:

By

I1EPI lv uL1TF MAPJ-l-hL

Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 60 Filed 04/09/2008 Page 1 of 1