alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31

SEMT 2013-2

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

I, Christopher J. Abate, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-2 (the
Exchange Act periodic reports);

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 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 reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements 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: Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, PHH Mortgage Corporation as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer,
and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent.

Date: March 31, 2017



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Christopher J. Abate                                     
|Signature                                                    
|                                                             
|Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Financial Officer 
|(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
**usbank********Annual Statement of Compliance****Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C7***VIA: EMAIL*Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 1585 Broadway New York, New York 10036 Attention: Stephen Holmes stephen.holmes@morganstanley.com Re: The  Pooling  and  Servicing  Agreement  (the  "Agreement")  dated  as  of  January  1,  2013  among Morgan  Stanley  Capital  I,  Inc.  as  depositor,  Midland  Loan  Services,  a  Division  of  PNC  Bank, National  Association,  as  master  servicer  and  special  servicer,  Situs  Holdings,  LLC,  as  trust advisor,  Wells  Fargo  Bank,  National  Association,  as  custodian  and  U.S.  Bank  National Association, as trustee, certificate administrator, certificate registrar and authenticating agent I, Kimberly O. Jacobs, a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator, as a certifying servicer hereby certify that:           (1) A review of the activities of the Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the  "Reporting  Period") and  of the  performance  of  the  Certificate  Administrator  under the  Agreement has been made under my supervision; and           (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certificate Administrator has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such Reporting Period  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. Date: March 24, 2015 U.S. Bank National Association as Certificate Administrator  By:  /s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs Kimberly O. Jacobs Senior Vice President
§ 429.47 Distribution transformers. ( a ) *Sampling plan for selection of units for testing.* ( 1 ) The requirements of § 429.11 are applicable to distribution transformers; and
( 2 ) For each basic model of distribution transformer, efficiency must be determined either by testing, in accordance with § 431.193 and the provisions of this section, or by application of an AEDM that meets the requirements of § 429.70 and the provisions of this section. ( i ) For each basic model selected for testing: ( A ) If the manufacturer produces five or fewer units of a basic model over 6 months, each unit must be tested. A manufacturer may not use a basic model with a sample size of fewer than five units to substantiate an AEDM pursuant to § 429.70.
( B ) If the manufacturer produces more than five units over 6 months, a sample of at least five units must be selected and tested.
( ii ) Any represented value of efficiency of a basic model must satisfy the condition:
( b ) *Certification reports.* ( 1 ) The requirements of § 429.12 are applicable to distribution transformers except that required information in paragraph (b) of this section may be reported by kVA grouping instead of by basic model and paragraph (b)(6) of this section does not apply; and
( 2 ) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information: For the most and least efficient basic models within each “kVA grouping” for which part 431 prescribes an efficiency standard, the kVA rating, the insulation type (*i.e.,* low-voltage dry-type, medium-voltage dry-type or liquid-immersed), the number of phases (*i.e.,* single-phase or three-phase), and the basic impulse insulation level (BIL) group rating (for medium-voltage dry-types).
( c ) *Alternative methods for determining efficiency or energy use* for distribution transformers can be found in § 429.70 of this subpart.
( d ) *Kilovolt ampere (kVA) grouping.* As used in this section, a “kVA grouping” is a group of basic models which all have the same kVA rating, have the same insulation type (*i.e.,* low-voltage dry-type, medium-voltage dry-type or liquid-immersed), have the same number of phases (*i.e.,* single-phase or three-phase), and, for medium-voltage dry-types, have the same BIL group rating (*i.e.,* 20-45 kV BIL, 46-95 kV BIL or greater than or equal to96 kV BIL).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. )

)

RONALD MCQUEEN ) CR. NO. 2:06CR198-WKW

O R D E R

The defendant by consent has appeared before a United States Magistrate Judge and has entered

a plea of guilty. The Magistrate Judge has accepted the plea of guilty and has adjudicated the defendant

guilty. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. That sentencing of the defendant be, and the same is, hereby set on March 21, 2007, at 10:00

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, counsel for 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 1, 2007, at 11:00

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 8th day of January, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 44 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### CHALMERS v. MURPHY et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by Harry B. Chalmers against Franklin Murphy and others.

H. E. White, of New York City, for appellants.

H. A. Content, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1086.
#### § 21.1 Purpose.

The regulations in this part establish procedures and requirements for implementation of section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. That section requires any individual director or responsible officer of a firm constructing, owning, operating or supplying the components of any facility or activity which is licensed or otherwise regulated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, who obtains information reasonably indicating: (a) That the facility, activity or basic component supplied to such facility or activity fails to comply with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or any applicable rule, regulation, order, or license of the Commission relating to substantial safety hazards or (b) that the facility, activity, or basic component supplied to such facility or activity contains defects, which could create a substantial safety hazard, to immediately notify the Commission of such failure to comply or such defect, unless he has actual knowledge that the Commission has been adequately informed of such defect or failure to comply.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 241 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 27, 2005.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, House Resolution 240 is 
hereby adopted.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

RICHARD ANDERSON

NO. 2022 Kw 0181

MARCH 28, 2022

In Re: Richard Anderson, applying for supervisory writs, 19th

Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 

No. 08- 10- 0824. 

BEFORE: MCDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED AS MOOT. The record of the Clerk of Court of

East Baton Rouge Parish reflects the district court denied

relator' s Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence on October 17, 

2016. 

JMbi

WIL

EW

URT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

L; 

DEPUTY CtERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
222 So.2d 882

#### Powell CRICHTON, Jr., et al. v. SUCCESSION OF Kate Crichton GREDLER.

No. 49822.

June 9, 1969.

In re: Thomas Crichton, Jr., Thomas Crichton III and John H. Crichton applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Webster. 220 So.2d 714.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.317 Separate hearings; consolidation of proceedings. ( a ) *Separate hearings.* On motion by the parties or upon request of the presiding officer for good cause shown, or on its own initiative, the Commission may establish separate hearings in a proceeding if it is found that the action will be conducive to the proper dispatch of its business and to the ends of justice and will be conducted in accordance with the other provisions of this subpart.
( b ) *Consolidation of proceedings.* On motion and for good cause shown or on its own initiative, the Commission or the presiding officers of each affected proceeding may consolidate for hearing or for other purposes two or more proceedings, or may hold joint hearings with interested States and/or other Federal agencies on matters of concurrent jurisdiction, if it is found that the action will be conducive to the proper dispatch of its business and to the ends of justice and will be conducted in accordance with the other provisions of this subpart.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 249 

Celebrating the recent discovery of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker in Eastern 

Arkansas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2005 

Mr. BERRY (for himself, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. SNYDER, and Mr. ROSS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Celebrating the recent discovery of the Ivory-Billed 

Woodpecker in Eastern Arkansas. 

Whereas the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker has recently been discovered and verified in the Big Woods region of Arkansas; 

Whereas the last confirmed sighting of the Ivory-Billed 

Woodpecker was in 1988 in the Sierra de Moa Mountains 

of Eastern Cuba; 

Whereas the last known population of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker in the United States disappeared in 1948; 

Whereas previous to the discovery in Arkansas, the IvoryBilled Woodpecker was thought to be extinct; and 
2 

•HRES 249 IH 

Whereas the discovery of this species that was once feared to 

be extinct highlights the current success of private landowners in managing resources in a responsible manner: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) celebrates the recent discovery of the Ivory3 Billed Woodpecker in Eastern Arkansas; 

4 (2) congratulates Gene Sparling of Hot 

5 Springs, Arkansas, who on February 11, 2004, spot6 ted an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker while kayaking in 

7 the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge; 

8 (3) commends Tim Gallagher, editor of the Cor9 nell Lab of Ornithology’s Living Bird Magazine, and 

10 Bobby Harrison, associate professor at Oakwood 

11 College, in Huntsville, Alabama, for their hard work 

12 and determination in verifying the presence of the 

13 Ivory-Billed Woodpecker in Arkansas; 

14 (4) commends David Luneau, associate pro15 fessor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 

16 for his work in video recording the Ivory-Billed 

17 Woodpecker and the important role this evidence 

18 played in verifying the species’ presence; 

19 (5) commends the private and public land20 owners of Arkansas, who through sound conserva21 tion and land management practices had the fore-
3 

•HRES 249 IH 

1 sight to protect this critical habitat in a manner that 

2 ensured the viability of this vulnerable species; 

3 (6) encourages the Department of the Interior, 

4 the Department of Agriculture, and their various 

5 agencies to continue to work with all parties in the 

6 State of Arkansas who have so successfully main7 tained this critical habitat; and 

8 (7) congratulates the Arkansas Game and Fish 

9 Commission, the Arkansas Natural Heritage Com10 mission, and the Nature Conservancy for their lead11 ership in taking a balanced approach to ensure the 

12 preservation of bottomland hardwood habitat. 

Æ
# Subpart 1631.1—Definitions

**Parent topic:**PART 1631—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

## 1631.1 Definitions.

The definitions in FAR 31.001 are applicable to this section unless otherwise noted.
§ 19.16 Requests by workers for inspections. ( a ) Any worker or representative of workers who believes that a violation of the Act, the regulations in this chapter, or license conditions exists or has occurred in license activities with regard to radiological working conditions in which the worker is engaged, may request an inspection by giving notice of the alleged violation to the Administrator of the appropriate Commission Regional Office, or to Commission inspectors. Any such notice shall be in writing, shall set forth the specific grounds for the notice, and shall be signed by the worker or representative of workers. A copy shall be provided the licensee by the Regional Office Administrator, or the inspector no later than at the time of inspection except that, upon the request of the worker giving such notice, his name and the name of individuals referred to therein shall not appear in such copy or on any record published, released or made available by the Commission, except for good cause shown.
( b ) If, upon receipt of such notice, the Regional Office Administrator determines that the complaint meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alleged violation exists or has occurred, he shall cause an inspection to be made as soon as practicable, to determine if such alleged violation exists or has occurred. Inspections pursuant to this section need not be limited to matters referred to in the complaint.
[38 FR 22217, Aug. 17, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 8783, Mar. 3, 1975; 47 FR 30454, July 14, 1982; 52 FR 31610, Aug. 21, 1987]
#### In the Matter of the Estate of James Sansivero, Deceased. Rocco Sansivero, Respondent; Vivian Ribando, Appellant.

[816 NYS2d 537]

*1009In a turnover proceeding pursuant to SCPA article 21, inter alia, to recover real property, Vivian Ribando appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Tomei, S.), dated April 18, 2005, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the proceeding and granted the petitioner’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The deceased, James Sansivero, and his wife, Michelina Sansivero, had two children, the appellant, Vivian, and the respondent, Rocco. In 1962 James and Michelina purchased real property located at 501 First Street in Brooklyn (hereinafter the premises). In 1966 James and Michelina entered into a separation agreement which provided, inter alia, that Michelina was to relinquish all her right, title, and interest in the premises to James by deed and that each party waived any interest in the other’s estate. After living separately for some period of time, James and Michelina again resided at the premises commencing in the late 1960’s until James died intestate in 1997. Although Rocco resided with Michelina at the premises, she conveyed the premises to Vivian in 2001. Michelina died on March 26, 2002.

In 2003 Vivian commenced a proceeding in the Civil Court of the City of New York to evict Rocco from the premises and she obtained a judgment of possession in that proceeding and a warrant of eviction. Rocco subsequently brought the instant turnover proceeding seeking, inter alia, to stay execution of the warrant of eviction obtained by Vivian and the turnover of the premises to the estate of James Sansivero.

Vivian moved for summary judgment dismissing the proceeding and Rocco opposed that motion. The matter was referred to a court appointed referee and a hearing was conducted before the referee on the issue of whether the separation agreement had been abandoned. By order dated September 10, 2003, the Surrogate determined that the separation agreement had not been abandoned. Vivian then moved for leave to renew and reargue and that motion was denied in an order dated February 27, 2004.

By notice of motion dated July 13, 2004, Vivian again moved *1010for summary judgment dismissing the proceeding and Rocco cross-moved for summary judgment. By order dated April 18, 2005, the Surrogate’s Court denied Vivian’s motion and granted Rocco’s cross motion. We reverse.

At the time of James’ death, Michelina became sole owner of the premises *(see Matter of Violi,*65 NY2d 392 [1985]). Michelina’s conveyance of the premises in 2001 to Vivian effected a transfer of sole ownership of the premises to Vivian. Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court erred in denying Vivian’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the proceeding and in granting Rocco’s cross motion. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 35
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 35.26 Radiation protection program changes. ( a ) A licensee may revise its radiation protection program without Commission approval if— ( 1 ) The revision does not require a license amendment under § 35.13;
( 2 ) The revision is in compliance with the regulations and the license ;
( 3 ) The revision has been reviewed and approved by the Radiation Safety Officer and licensee management; and
( 4 ) The affected individuals are instructed on the revised program before the changes are implemented.
( b ) A licensee shall retain a record of each change in accordance with § 35.2026.
PGI Part 203 - IMPROPER BUSINESS

PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST

PGI 203.1 -SAFEGUARDS

PGI 203.5 -OTHER IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES

PGI 203.570 Prohibition on persons convicted of fraud or other defense-contract-related felonies.

PGI 203.570-1 Scope.

PGI 203.570-2 Prohibition period.

PGI 203.8 - LIMITATIONS ON THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO INFLUENCE FEDERAL

TRANSACTIONS

PGI 203.806 Prohibition on persons convicted of fraud or other defense-contract-related felonies.

Parent topic: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

PGI 203.1 -SAFEGUARDS

No Current PGI Text.

PGI 203.5 -OTHER IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES

PGI 203.570 Prohibition on persons convicted of fraud or other defensecontract-related felonies.

PGI 203.570-1 Scope.

The complete text of 10 U.S.C. 4656, Prohibition on Persons Convicted of Defense-Contract Related

Felonies and Related Criminal Penalty on Defense Contractors, is available at

http://uscode.house.gov/. (Select “Search the U.S. Code”; then type “10 USC Sec. 4656” (including

the quotation marks) in the search engine window and click on the search button).

PGI 203.570-2 Prohibition period.

(a)(1) The contracting officer shall—

(i) Review any request for waiver; and
(ii) Deny the request if the contracting officer decides the waiver is not required in the interests of

national security; or

(iii) Forward the request to the head of the agency or designee for approval if the contracting officer

decides the waiver may be in the interest of national security.

(2) The head of the agency or designee shall report all waivers granted, and the reasons for granting

the waiver, to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment), who will forward the

report to Congress.

(3) Guidance on using the Exclusions section of the System for Award Management is available at

PGI 209.105-1 .

(b) Submit a copy of the determination to Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice,

810 Seventh Street, NW, Washington, DC 20531.

PGI 203.8 - LIMITATIONS ON THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO

INFLUENCE FEDERAL TRANSACTIONS

PGI 203.806 Prohibition on persons convicted of fraud or other defensecontract-related felonies.

(a) Report violations or potential violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (31 U.S.C. 1352) through

agency channels to the Deputy Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (Contracting

Policy) via email at osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.asda-dp-c-contractpolicy@mail.mil.

(b) The OUSD(A&S) memorandum dated March 5, 2012, Department of Defense Inspector General

(DODIG) Report 2012-030, Contractor Compliance Varies with Classification of Lobbying Costs and

Reporting of Lobbying Activities (Project No. D2010-DOOOCF-0145.000) is available here .