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



Re:	   Morgan Stanley Bank of America
Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C7, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-C7(the “Transaction”),
issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2013 (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”),
executed in connection with the Transaction (capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement).





---



I, George Kok, 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 Morgan Stanley Bank of America
Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C7 (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 statement(s)
required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s)
have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) 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:



| | ● | U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee                                              
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | ● | U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator                            
| | ● | Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian                                    
| | ● | Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association,
as Master Servicer 
| | ● | Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association,
as Special Servicer
| | ● | Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor                                               



Date: March 29, 2019



| | By | /s/George Kok   
| | -- | ----------------
| |    | Name: George Kok
| |    | Title: President
(June 9, 1969)

#### In the Matter of Vernon Wilson, Petitioner, v. John A. Gallucci, as County Judge of Rockland County, et al., Respondents.

This is a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to direct the respondent County Judge to issue certain subpoenas duces tecum in a criminal case pending against petitioner and to prohibit said respondent and the respondent" District Attorney from moving said case to trial until such subpoenas shall have been issued. The District Attorney has moved to dismiss the petition upon objections in point of law, namely, the petition fails to state a cause of action and the County Judge’s refusal to issue the subpoenas was not a final determination and was an exercise of discretion in a criminal case which may not be reviewed in an article 78 proceeding. Petition dismissed on the merits, without costs. Petitioner, indicted and charged with criminally selling a dangerous drug in the second degree (Penal Law, § 220.35), was granted a pretrial hearing on the admissibility of identification evidence. Prior to the eommencemenx, of the hearing, he applied to the respondent County Judge for subpoenas duces tecum addressed to the Spring Valley Police Department, the Clarkstown Police Department, the Department of New York State Police and five named members of the above Departments, for production of a wide range of records and documents (too numerous to recite here; but see decision of G-allueei, J., dated March 13, 1969) “ pertaining to the investigation and arrest ” of petitioner. The application was denied, by an order dated March 17,1969, on the grounds of the failure to show materiality and relevance and of the breadth of the subpoenas. Determination of the instant proceeding turns on whether the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum directed to a governmental department in a criminal action is a ministerial or discretionary act. The prohibition sought is wholly dependent on a favorable determination on the mandamus (subpoena) issue. Mandamus will lie against a body or *785officer only to require the performance of a duty enjoined upon it or him by law (GPLR 7803, par. 1). However, an article 78 proceeding may not be employed *“*to challenge a determination: 1. * * ” 2. which was made in a * * * criminal matter” (iCPLR 7801). Christ, Acting P. J., HopMns, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JiJ., concur.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 10

- 00 824

- CR

IN RE Jason MIEARS

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 24, 2010

PETITION F OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION

DENIED

On November 10, 2010, relator Jason Miears filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a

petition for writ of injunction. The court has considered relator’s petitions an d is of the opinion

that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petitions are DENIED. See T EX

.

R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No s

. 2009

- CR

- 6566 and 2009

- CR

- 6569 , styled State of Te xas v.

Jason Miears , pending in the 379th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel

presiding.
§ 429.106 Investigation of compliance. ( a ) DOE may initiate an investigation that a basic model may not be compliant with an applicable conservation standard, certification requirement or other regulation at any time.
( b ) DOE may, at any time, request any information relevant to determining compliance with any requirement under parts 429, 430 and 431, including the data underlying certification of a basic model. Such data may be used by DOE to make a determination of compliance or noncompliance with an applicable standard.
#### § 948.32 Appeal.

If any applicant for exemption certificates is dissatisfied with the determination by an area committee with respect to his application, he may file an appeal with the committee. Any applicant filing an appeal shall furnish evidence satisfactory to the committee for a determination on the appeal.
LEGAL02/30203493v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DEBRA HARRISON, as Administrator of the 

Estate of MAX BARLOW, deceased, et al.,

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

Civil Action No. 

2:06-CV-757-LES-CSC

PACTIV CORPORATION and LOUISIANAPACIFIC CORPORATION, )

)

)

Defendants. )

)

DEFENDANT LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT SIX

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and 7(b), Defendant Louisiana-Pacific Corporation 

(“Louisiana-Pacific”) moves this Court for an Order dismissing Count Six of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Count Six fails to state a 

valid claim under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine. Therefore, 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Count Six must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted.

Case 2:06-cv-00757-LES-CSC Document 6 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 1 of 4
2

LEGAL02/30203493v1

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of December, 2006.

/s/Bernard Taylor

Bernard Taylor (admitted pro hac vice)

Douglas S. Arnold (admitted pro hac vice)

Orlyn O. Lockard, III (admitted pro hac vice)

Counsel for Defendant Louisiana-Pacific

Corporation

OF COUNSEL:

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

One Atlantic Center

1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Tel: (404) 881-7000

Fax: (404) 881-7777

bernard.taylor@alston.com

doug.arnold@alston.com

skip.lockard@alston.com

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL:

Dennis R. Bailey 

ASB No. 4845-I71D

R. Austin Huffaker 

ASB NO. 3422-F55R

RUSHTON, STAKELY, JOHNSON, & GARRETT, P.A.

184 Commerce Street

Post Office Box 270

Montgomery, AL 36101

Tel: (334) 206-3100

Fax: (334) 262-6277

drb@rsjg.com (Bailey)

rah2@rsjg.com (Huffaker)

Case 2:06-cv-00757-LES-CSC Document 6 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 2 of 4
3

LEGAL02/30203493v1

Laura Proctor

ASB 1504-R54L

Associate General Counsel

Louisiana-Pacific Corporation

414 Union Street North, Suite 2000

Nashville, Tennessee 37219

Tel: (615) 986-5878

Fax: 1-866-741-5091

laura.proctor@lpcorp.com

Case 2:06-cv-00757-LES-CSC Document 6 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 3 of 4
4

LEGAL02/30203493v1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of December, 2006, I filed the foregoing via the 

CM/ECF system which will send notice of said filing to the following:

W. Eason Mitchell

Gregory A. Cade

Fred R. DeLeon

W. Lee Gresham, III

Robert Leslie Palmer

Mark R. TerMolen

John C. Berghoff, Jr.

Matthew C. Sostrin

John A. Earnhardt

H. Thomas Wells, Jr.

Richard Elder Crum

/s/Orlyn O. Lockard, III

Of Counsel

Case 2:06-cv-00757-LES-CSC Document 6 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 4 of 4
627.304-4 Appeals.

The Procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 27.304–4.

Questions regarding the appeals procedure as specified in FAR 27.304–4(b) shall be referred to

A/OPE.

Parent topic: Subpart 627.3—Patent Rights Under Government Contracts
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 227 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 26, 2005.
Whereas the United States is deeply enriched by its Indian American residents;
Whereas the Indian American community and the graduates of the Indian Institutes 
        of Technology (IIT) in the United States have made valuable and 
        significant contributions to society in every profession and discipline; 
        and
Whereas IIT graduates are highly committed and dedicated to research, 
        innovation, and promotion of trade and international cooperation between 
        India and the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the valuable and significant contributions of Indian 
        Americans to American society;
            (2) honors the economic innovation attributable to graduates of the 
        Indian Institutes of Technology; and
            (3) urges all Americans to recognize the contributions of Indian 
        Americans and have a greater appreciation of the role Indian Americans 
        have played in helping to advance and enrich American society.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

DONNA DORSEY DAVIS, etc., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv766-MHT

) 

RICHARD M. DORSEY, etc., )

and CD&O, L.L.C., etc., )

)

Defendants. )

 RULE 26(F) ORDER

The parties are reminded of the obligation, imposed

by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to

confer and to develop a proposed discovery plan.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Rule 26(f) report

containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as

practicable but not later than October 31, 2006.

The longstanding practice in this district is that

dispositive motions shall be filed no later than 90 days

prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary

from that schedule, they should present, in the plan,

specific case-related reasons for the requested variance.

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 10 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

In their Rule 26(f) report, however, the parties should

assume that the 90-day requirement will apply.

This case will be set for trial before the

undersigned judge during one of that judge's regularly

scheduled civil trial terms, within 7 to 10 months of

this order if a term is available and, if not available,

then as soon as possible thereafter. The pretrial date

is normally set within four to six weeks of a scheduled

trial term. The dates of each judge's civil trial terms

are available on the court's website located at

<http://almd.uscourts.gov> in the civil case information

section.

The court may or may not hold a scheduling conference

before issuing a scheduling order. If the court holds a

scheduling conference, counsel may participate in the

scheduling conference by conference call.

The scheduling order entered by the court will follow

the form of the Uniform Scheduling Order adopted by the

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 10 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 2 of 3
judges of this court. The Uniform Scheduling Order is

also available on the court's website.

The report of the parties should comply with Form 35

of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

DONE, this the 18th day of October, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 10 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 3 of 3
#### § 434.510 Standard calculation procedure.

510.1 The Standard Calculation Procedure consists of methods and assumptions for calculating the Energy Cost Budget for the Prototype or Reference Building and the Design Energy Consumption and Design Energy Cost of the Proposed Design. In order to maintain consistency between the Energy Cost Budget and the Design Energy Cost, the input assumptions to be used are stated below. These inputs shall be used to determine the Energy Cost Budget and the Design Energy Consumption.

510.2 Prescribed assumptions shall be used without variation. Default assumptions shall be used unless the designer can demonstrate that a different assumption better characterizes the building's energy use over its expected life. The default assumptions shall be used in modeling both the Prototype or Reference Building and the Proposed Design, unless the designer demonstrates clear cause to modify these assumptions. Special procedures for speculative buildings are discussed in subsection 503. Shell buildings may not use subpart E.
§ 435.5 Performance level determination. ( a ) For new Federal buildings for which design for construction began on or after January 3, 2007, but before August 10, 2012, each Federal agency shall determine energy consumption levels for both the IECC Baseline Building 2004 and proposed building by using the Simulated Performance Alternative found in section 404 of the IECC 2004 (incorporated by reference, see § 435.3).
( b ) For new Federal buildings for which design for construction began on or after August 10, 2012, but before January 10, 2018, each Federal agency shall determine energy consumption levels for both the IECC Baseline Building 2009 and proposed building by using the Simulated Performance Alternative found in section 405 of the IECC 2009 (incorporated by reference, see § 435.3).
( c ) For new Federal buildings for which design for construction began on or after January 10, 2018 but before April 5, 2023 each Federal agency shall determine energy consumption levels for both the IECC Baseline Building 2015 and proposed building by using the Simulated Performance Alternative found in section R405 of the IECC 2015 (incorporated by reference, see § 435.3).
( d ) For new Federal buildings for which design for construction began on or after April 5, 2023 each Federal agency shall determine energy consumption levels for both the IECC Baseline Building 2021 and proposed building by using the Simulated Performance Alternative found in section R405 of the IECC 2021 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 435.3).
[82 FR 2867, Jan. 10, 2017, as amended at 87 FR 19613, Apr. 5, 2022]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1]

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (“AEHI”) because of questions regarding the accuracy and adequacy of disclosures by AEHI concerning, among other things: (1) The stock sales of certain AEHI officers, (2) the status and viability of funding to build a nuclear reactor, and (3) executive compensation. AEHI is quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board and on the Pink Sheets operated by Pink OTC Markets, Inc. under the ticker symbol “AEHI.”

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.

*Therefore, it is ordered,*                     pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on December 14, 2010 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on December 28, 2010.                

By the Commission.

Florence E. Harmon,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-31698 Filed 12-14-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
§ 110.120 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This subpart contains special procedures concerning access to, and introduction of, classified information into hearings under this part.
( b ) These procedures do not in any way apply to classified information exchanged between the Executive Branch and the Commission not introduced into a hearing. Such information will be declassified to the maximum extent feasible. The public statements of the Commission staff and Executive Branch will, to the extent consistent with classification requirements, reflect consideration of any such classified information.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 267 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 376) to amend title XVIII 

of the Social Security Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services to negotiate fair prices for Medicare prescription drugs 

on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2005 

Ms. HOOLEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 376) to amend 

title XVIII of the Social Security Act to authorize the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate 

fair prices for Medicare prescription drugs on behalf 

of Medicare beneficiaries. 

1 Resolved, That immediately after the adoption of this 

2 resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of 

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee 

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 376) to amend title XVIII of the 

6 Social Security Act to authorize the Secretary of Health 

7 and Human Services to negotiate fair prices for Medicare 
2 

HRES 267 IH 

1 prescription drugs on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. The 

2 first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 

3 of order against the bill and against its consideration are 

4 waived (except those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI). 

5 General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 

6 exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 

7 chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 

8 on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill 

9 shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 

10 rule. The bill shall be considered as read. At the conclusion 

11 of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 

12 shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 

13 amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 

14 demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment 

15 adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill. The 

16 previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 

17 bill and amendments thereto to final passage without in18 tervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 

19 without instructions. 

Æ
exv4w14




EXHIBIT
4.14


February
19, 2010




Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20549




Re:
Brookfield Homes Corporation



Ladies
and Gentlemen:




In
accordance with Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Brookfield
Homes Corporation (the “Registrant”) has not filed herewith any instrument with respect to long-term debt not being registered where the total number of securities authorized thereunder does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total assets of the Registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.
The Registrant hereby agrees to furnish a copy of any such agreement to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.


Sincerely,





BROOKFIELD HOMES CORPORATION






/s/ CRAIG J.
LAURIE
	

Craig J. Laurie


Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 11

                                WATER CHEF, INC.

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                                 MARCH 31, 1997


Common shares outstanding beginning of period ................   16,836,574

Effect of weighting shares:
        Shares issued ........................................           --
                                                                -----------

Weighted shares ..............................................   16,836,574
                                                                ===========

          The net loss per share was calculated as follows:

Net loss.....................................................   $   (62,081)
                                                                ===========

Weighted shares ..............................................   16,836,574
                                                                ===========

          NET LOSS PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES

Net loss per share                                              $        (0)
                                                                ===========