alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Kunal K. Singh,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the J.P. MorganChase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2012‐LC9(the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading

with respect to theperiod covered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation 

AB and Exchange ActRules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, exceptas otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland LoanServices, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as SeniorTrust Advisor.

 

 

 

Dated: March 21, 2018

 

 

/s/ Kunal K. Singh

Kunal K. Singh

President and ChiefExecutive Officer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### § 983.4 Aflatoxin.

*Aflatoxin* is one of a group of mycotoxins produced by the molds *Aspergillus flavus* and *Aspergillus parasiticus.* Aflatoxins are naturally occurring compounds produced by molds, which can be spread in improperly processed and stored nuts, dried fruits and grains.
227 So.2d 373

#### STATE of Louisiana v. John K. SNYDER.

No. 50172.

Nov. 6, 1969.

In re: John K. Snyder applying - for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibir tion.

*831The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1096 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 247
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1096

                          [Report No. 109-720]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, 
                        and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2006

   Mrs. Capito, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION



   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of December 7, 2006.
    Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of 
December 7, 2006, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House 
suspend the rules. The Speaker or his designee shall consult with the 
Minority Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for 
consideration pursuant to this resolution.
    Sec. 3. House Resolutions 810, 939, 951, and 1047 are laid upon the 
table.
                                                 House Calendar No. 247

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1096

                          [Report No. 109-720]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 6, 2006

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
#### Hector Campos, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

Submitted October 15, 2007;

decided October 23, 2007

Reported below, 32 AD3d 287.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
**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 theaccompanying Quarterly Report of Greene County Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (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 pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  The Reportfully 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.

 

/s/    R. StanPuckett        Chairman of the Board and ChiefExecutive        Officer

Date:  May 9, 2006

 

----
SUBCHAPTER C - CONTRACTING METHODS

AND CONTRACTING TYPES

PART 2413 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

PART 2414 - SEALED BIDDING

PART 2415 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

PART 2416 - TYPES OF CONTRACTS

PART 2417 - SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS

PART 2413 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

Subpart 2413.1 - General [Reserved]

Subpart 2413.3 - Simplified Acquisition Methods

2413.301 Governmentwide commercial purchase card.

2413.305-2 Agency responsibilities.

2413.305-3 Conditions for use.

Subpart 2413.4 - Imprest Fund [Reserved]

Subpart 2413.5 - Purchase Orders

2413.505 Purchase order and related forms.

PART 2414 - SEALED BIDDING

Subpart 2414.4 - Opening of Bids and Award of Contracts

2414.404 Rejection of bids.

2414.404-1 Cancellation of invitations after opening.

2414.407 Mistakes in bids.

2414.407-3 Other mistakes disclosed before award.

2414.407-4 Mistakes after award.

2414.408 Award.

2414.408-70 Award when only one bid is received.

PART 2415 - CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

Subpart 2415.2 - Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Quotations

2415.203 Requests for proposals.

2415.204 Contract format.

2415.209 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

Subpart 2415.3 - Source Selection

2415.303 Responsibilities.

2415.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.

2415.305 Proposal evaluation.

2415.308 Source selection decision.

2415.370 Solicitation provision.

Subpart 2415.5 - Preaward, Award, and Postaward notifications, Protests, and Mistakes

2415.507 Protests against award.

Subpart 2415.6 - Source Selection

2415.605 Content of unsolicited proposals.

2415.605-70 Unsolicited research proposals.

2415.606 Agency procedures.

PART 2416 - TYPES OF CONTRACTS

Subpart 2416.3 - Cost-Reimbursement Contracts

2416.307 Contract clauses.

Subpart 2416.4 - Incentive Contracts
2416.406 Contract clauses.

Subpart 2416.5 - Indefinite-Delivery Contracts

2416.505 Ordering.

2416.506 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

2416.506-70 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

Subpart 2416.6 - Time-And-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts

2416.603 Letter contracts.

2416.603-2 Application.

PART 2417 - SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS

Subpart 2417.2 - Options

2417.204 Contracts.

Subpart 2417.5 - Interagency Acquisitions Under the Economy Act

2417.504 Ordering procedures.
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

NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

Re: Southern Boll Weevil vs. Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, etc.

 Civil Action No. 2:06cv756-VPM

The above-styled case has been reassigned to District Judge Myron H.

Thompson.

Please note that the case number is now 2:06cv756-MHT. This new case

number should be used on all future correspondence and pleadings in this

action.

 

Case 2:06-cv-00756-MHT-WC Document 3 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 1 of 1
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ALEK L. NEWPORT, ) DC #493638, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1921 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed April 5, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Neil A. Roddenbery, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2137

In Re: ANTHONY MCQUEEN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:04-cr-00257-CMH-1; 1:07-cv-00871-CMH)

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: July 1, 2015

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony McQueen, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony McQueen petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging 

the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment docketed on 

November 19, 2013. He seeks an order from this court directing 

the district court to act. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be 

used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. 

Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976).

Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that no 

significant action has occurred related to the motion since it 

was docketed on November 19, 2013. We find that the delay in 

acting on McQueen’s motion filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

proceeding is excessive and warrants granting a writ of 

mandamus. Johnson v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 1283, 1285 (10th Cir. 

1990); In re Funkhouser, 873 F.2d 1076, 1077 (8th Cir. 1989). 

Accordingly, we grant McQueen’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis and direct the district court to act on McQueen’s 

motion filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding within 30

days after the date of this opinion.

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.

PETITION GRANTED
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.629 Finality of partial decision on site suitability issues in a combined license proceeding. ( a ) The partial decision on site suitability issues in a combined license proceeding shall be incorporated in the decision regarding issuance of a combined license. Except as provided in 10 CFR 2.758, in making the findings required for issuance of a combined license, the Commission shall treat as resolved those matters resolved in connection with the issuance of the partial decision on site suitability issues. If the Commission reaches an adverse decision, the application shall be denied without prejudice for resubmission, provided, however, that in determining whether the resubmitted application is complete and acceptable for docketing under § 2.101(a)(3), the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation shall determine whether the resubmitted application addresses those matters identified as bases for denial of the original application.
( b ) Notwithstanding any provision in 10 CFR 50.109, while a partial decision on site suitability is in effect under § 2.627(b)(2), the Commission may not modify, rescind, or impose new requirements with respect to matters within the scope of the site suitability decision, whether on its own motion, or in response to a request or petition from any person, unless the Commission determines that a modification to the original decision is necessary either for compliance with the Commission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time the partial decision was issued, or to assure adequate protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security.
[72 FR 49478, Aug. 28, 2007, as amended at 84 FR 63567, Nov. 18, 2019; 84 FR 65644, Nov. 29, 2019]
#### § 218.12 Pricing.

The price for oil subject to a supply order issued pursuant to this subpart shall be based on the price conditions prevailing for comparable commercial transactions at the time the supply order is served.
§ 16.15 Procedures for internal salary offset. ( a ) Deductions to liquidate an employee's debt will be by the method and in the amount stated in the NRC's notice of intention to offset as provided in § 16.7. Debts will be collected in one lump sum where possible. If the employee is financially unable to pay in one lump sum, collection must be made in installments.
( b ) Debts will be collected by deduction at officially established pay intervals from an employee's current pay account unless alternative arrangements for repayment are made.
( c ) Installment deductions will be made over a period not greater than the anticipated period of employment. The size of installment deductions must bear a reasonable relationship to the size of the debt and the employee's ability to pay. The deduction for the pay intervals for any period may not exceed 15% of disposable pay unless the employee has agreed in writing to a deduction of a greater amount.
( d ) Offset against any subsequent payment due an employee who retires or resigns or whose employment or period of active duty ends before collection of the debt is completed is provided for in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3716. These payments include but are not limited to final salary payment or lump-sum leave due the employee from the paying agency as of the date of separation to the extent necessary to liquidate the debt.
303.1003 Requirements.

(b) The contracting officer, when notified of a possible contractor violation, in accordance with FAR

3.1003(b), shall notify the OIG and the HCA.

(c)(2) The contracting officer shall specify the title of HHS' OIG hotline poster and the Web site

where the poster can be obtained in paragraph (b)(3) of the clause at FAR 52.203-14.

Parent topic: Subpart 303.10 - Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct
1 

                                                                      McGladeryLLP**Reportof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

To the Board of Directors Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC 

Wehave examined management's assertion, included in the accompanyingManagement's Report on 

Assessmentof 2013 Compliance by Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC With Regulation ABServicing Criteria 

(Management'

sAssertion), that Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC (the Company) compliedwith the servicing

criteriaset forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission'sRegulation AB for services 

by theCompany that are encompassed by contractual obligations to performRegulation AB reporting (the Platform), including only those asset-backed securities transactionsdefined below, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013, excluding the following criteria set forth inItems 1122(d)(1)(i-iv), 1122(d)(2)(i-vii), 1122(d)(3)(ii-iv), 1122(d)(4)(i-vi) and1122(d)(4)(viii-xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by theCompany with respect to the Platform

coveredby this report. The Exhibit to management's assertion ide

ntifiesthe individual asset-backed

transactionsdefined by management as constituting the Platform. Management isresponsible for the

Company'scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibilityis to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria based

on ourexamination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standardsestablished by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board(UnitedStates) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidenceabout the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria,including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities relatedto the Platform, determining whether the Company performed thoseactivities in compliance with the servicing criteria during thespecified period and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selectedservicing activities performed by the Company during the period coveredby this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have includedservicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction in thePlatform. Further, an examination is not designed to detectnoncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to theperiod specified above that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis forour opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination onthe Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.In ouropinion, management’s assertion that Pentalpha Surveillance, LLCcomplied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as ofand for the year ended December 31, 2013 for the Platform, is fairlystated, in all material respects.

Irvine,CA March 4, 2014 

----
#### § 993.109 Modified definition of non-French prunes.

The definition of non-French prunes set forth in § 993.6 is modified to read as follows: *Non-French Prunes* means prunes commonly known as Imperial, Sugar, Robe de Sargent, Burton, Standard, Jefferson, Fellenberg, Italian, President, Giant, Hungarian (Gross), and Moyer, produced from such varieties of plums.

[38 FR 22887, Aug. 27, 1973]
Subpart 1836.2—Special Aspects of

Contracting for Construction

Parent topic: PART 1836—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

1836.203 Government estimate of construction costs.(NASA

supplements paragraph (c))

(c)(i) If the acquisition is by sealed bidding, the contracting officer shall file a sealed copy of the

detailed Government estimate with the bids until bid opening. After the bids are read and recorded,

the contracting officer shall read the estimate, and record it in the same detail as the bids.

(ii) If the acquisition is by negotiation, the contracting officer may disclose the overall amount of the

Government estimate after award upon request of offerors.

1836.213-370 Additive and deductive items.

When it appears that funds available for a project may be insufficient for all the desired features of

construction, the contracting officer may provide in the invitation for bids for a first or base bid item

covering the work generally as specified and one or more additive or deductive bid items

progressively adding or omitting specified features of the work in a stated order of priority. In such

case, the contracting officer, before the opening of bids, shall record in the contract file the amount

of funds available for the project and determine the low bidder and the items to be awarded in

accordance with the provision at 1852.236–71, Additive or Deductive Items.
The Excavationby Lamar Dodd (1909)Watercolor on paper 40 x 50Excavation for the Third Powerhouse at Grand Coulee Dam, Columbia Basin Project, Washington. backPrivacy Policy | Disclaimer | Accessibility | FOIA | Quality of Information | FAQ | NoticesDOI | Recreation.gov | USA.gov
#### Jean R. Hallingby, Respondent-Appellant, v Paul Hallingby, Jr., Appellant-Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 8, 1979, awarding plaintiff alimony, *pendente lite,*of $1,000 per week, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, to reduce said sum to $500 per week, effective the date of this court’s order. In the event defendant fails to serve a note of issue for the next available term, or if either party delays the trial of this action in any manner, an application for modification of the award may be made by the other. After considering the circumstances of the parties we modify Special Term’s award of temporary alimony to $500 weekly, a sum which we believe appropriate to plaintiff’s present needs, and attach conditions which, we trust, will assure an early trial of this matter. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Markewich, Silverman and Yesawich, JJ.
#### Episcopal Diocese of Rochester et al., Respondents, v David Harnish, as Former Rector of All Saints Protestant Episcopal Church, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. In the Matter of All Saints Anglican Church, Formerly Known as All Saints Protestant Episcopal Church, Appellant, v Episcopal Diocese of Rochester et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 13, 2007;

decided January 15, 2008

Reported below, 43 AD3d 1406.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order that affirmed Supreme Court’s order denying appellants’ motion for leave to renew, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise granted.