alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-35.8
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1086-120, 12th Floor
550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
as of November 1, 2012, by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving
Corporation, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master
Servicer, Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, Torchlight
Loan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as
Trustee and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, with respect
to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2012-CCRE4 (the
"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have
the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice
President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from November
1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, and of its performance per the Agreement
during such period has been made under my supervision, and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer, has
fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects
throughout the period November 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the
13th day of March 2013.

/s/ Daniel Bober
Daniel Bober
Executive Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(logo) Together we'll go far
Subpart 2005.5 - Paid Advertisements

Parent topic: PART 2005 - PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

2005.502 Authority.

Before placing paid advertisements in newspapers and trade journals to publicize contract actions,

written authority must be obtained from the Director, Division of Contracts and Property

Management, for Headquarters activities, or the Director, Division of Resource Management and

Administration, within each regional office for a regional procurement.
2007-1846.

#### State v. Gangloff.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-060481 and C-060536, 2007-Ohio-4463. On motion for stay of execution of sentence. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Cupp, J., dissent.
Tenn. R. Ct. App. 10 states:

1

This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify

the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no

precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated

“MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any

reason in any unrelated case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

September 9, 2004 Session

IN THE MATTER OF: J.J.S., O.J.S., A.L.S., AND C.M.S.

Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Cannon County

No. 1037 Susan Melton, Judge

No. M2003-02243-COA-R3-PT - Filed September 17, 2004

Because of questions regarding the trial court’s denial of appointed counsel in this proceeding that

resulted in the termination of parental rights, the Department of Children’s Services has

acknowledged that the trial court’s judgment must be vacated. We agree.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court

Vacated and Remanded

PATRICIA J.COTTRELL,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM C. KOCH,JR., P.J.,

M.S., and FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., J., joined.

Janet D. Powell; M. Keith Siskin, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellants, J.S. and M.S.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, Douglas Earl Dimond, Senior Counsel, for the

appellee, State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

On December 19, 2000, the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) petitioned for

termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father to their four children who had been in the

custody of DCS since January of 2000. The petition was heard August 27, 2003, and the court

entered an order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. 
-2-

On appeal, both parents raised the denial of appointed counsel to represent them in the

termination proceedings. DCS, through the Office of the Attorney General, has agreed that the trial

court’s order terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father must be vacated because the record

does not demonstrate compliance with Tenn. R. Juv. P. 39 or Tenn. R. S. Ct. 13.

Although this case was consolidated, for purposes of argument and disposition, with Appeal

No. M2003-01670-COA-R3-CV, involving the same parents’ appeal of a circuit court order finding

the children dependent and neglected, the positions of the parties have resolved this appeal.

Therefore, the purposes served by the consolidation no longer apply, and the order of consolidation

is vacated. The appeal of the dependency and neglect order remains pending.

Accordingly, the trial court’s order of August 28, 2004, terminating the parental rights of

Mother and Father is vacated. The case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial after

adjudication of the parent’s right to appointed counsel in compliance with applicable law.

Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellee, the Department of Children’s Services.

___________________________________ 

PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JUDGE
3032.1110 Solicitation provision and contract

clauses.

(a)

(1) Contracting officer shall insert FAR 48 CFR 52.232–33, Payment by Electronic Funds

Transfer—Central Contractor Registration, in all proposed solicitations and contracts.

Parent topic: Subpart 3032.11—Electronic Funds Transfer
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Sibanye Gold Limited (the Company) for the period ended
December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Neal Froneman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 March 2015



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Neal Froneman                    
|Neal Froneman
Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 248 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 28, 2005.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 95) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 2006, revising appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 
2005, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 
through 2010. All points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read. The 
conference report shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
    Sec. 2. (a) During the One Hundred Ninth Congress, except as provided in 
subsection (c), a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill 
to the House shall not be in order if the bill, as amended, exceeds an 
applicable allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as estimated by the Committee on the Budget.
    (b) If a point of order under subsection (a) is sustained, the Chair shall 
put the question: ``Shall the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to 
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted notwithstanding that the 
bill exceeds its allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974?''. Such question shall be debatable for 10 
minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent of the question and an 
opponent but shall be decided without intervening motion.
    (c) Subsection (a) shall not apply--
            (1) to a motion offered under clause 2(d) of rule XXI; or
            (2) after disposition of a question under subsection (b) on a given 
        bill.
    (d) If a question under subsection (b) is decided in the negative, no 
further amendment shall be in order except--
            (1) one proper amendment, which shall be debatable for 10 minutes 
        equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 
        not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
        division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole; 
        and
            (2) pro forma amendments, if offered by the chairman or ranking 
        minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees, 
        for the purpose of debate.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 10A, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Samuel M. Inman, III, certify that:





|   |                                                                                                
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Covisint Corporation; and




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit 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.







July 25, 2017





By: /s/ SAMUEL M. INMAN, III


Samuel M. Inman, III


Chief Executive Officer
809.507-1 Solicitation provisions.       (a) While conflicts of interest may not presently exist, award of certain types of contracts may create potential future organizational conflicts of interest (see FAR 9.508 for examples). If a solicitation may create a potential future organizational conflict of interest, the contracting officer shall insert a provision in the solicitation imposing an appropriate restraint on the contractor's eligibility for award of contracts in the future. Under FAR 9.507-1, the restraint must be appropriate to the nature of the conflict and may exclude the contractor from award of one or more contracts in the future.          (b) The provision at 852.209-70, Organizational Conflicts of Interest, must be included in any solicitation for the services addressed in FAR 9.502.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 809.5 - Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest
937 A.2d 176

#### Jean RAMDOO v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 83

Sept. Term, 2007.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 10, 2007.

George Harper, Upper Marlboro, for petitioner.

Brian S. Kleinbord, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of MD), Baltimore, for respondent.

SUBMITTED BEFORE: BELL, C.J., RAKER, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA and GREENE, JJ.

PER CURIAM

ORDER

The Court having considered and granted the petition for writ of certiorari in the above captioned case, it is this 10th day of December, 2007,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is hereby, vacated, and the case is remanded to that Court for reconsideration in light of *State of Maryland v. Arvel D. Williams,*401 *476Md. 676, 934 A.2d 38 (2007). Costs in this Court to be paid by respondent, and costs in the Court of Special Appeals to abide the result.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 317 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 317

Honoring Lao and Hmong veterans and their refugee families and the 30th 
           year of the end of the Indochina conflict in Laos.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2005

 Mr. Radanovich (for himself, Mr. Holden, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, 
 and Mr. Green of Wisconsin) submitted the following resolution; which 
        was referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Honoring Lao and Hmong veterans and their refugee families and the 30th 
           year of the end of the Indochina conflict in Laos.

Whereas 2005 marks the 30th year since the end of the Indochina conflict and the 
        withdrawal of United States forces from Laos;
Whereas armed forces and clandestine forces of the United States worked in 
        cooperation with the Royal Lao Government and special Lao and Hmong 
        military and guerilla units to defend United States national security 
        interests and the Kingdom of Laos during the Indochina conflict;
Whereas Royal Lao armed forces and ethnic Lao and Hmong special guerilla units 
        interdicted enemy troop and supply convoys on the Ho Chi Minh Trail in 
        Laos headed toward South Vietnam to engage American combat forces;
Whereas special Lao and Hmong military and guerilla units helped to locate and 
        save American pilots shot down over Laos and Vietnam;
Whereas thousands of freedom-loving Lao and Hmong people sacrificed, suffered, 
        and died in defense of their beloved homeland and in support of the 
        efforts of the armed forces and clandestine forces of the United States 
        to defend Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Southeast Asia;
Whereas the Kingdom of Laos fell to invading North Vietnamese forces and 
        Communist Pathet Lao guerillas in May of 1975;
Whereas tens of thousands of Lao and Hmong veterans and refugees fled Laos after 
        the Communist takeover and were given political asylum in the United 
        States and other countries; and
Whereas many refugee Lao and Hmong veterans and their families have become 
        citizens of the United States, and as new Americans, are positive, 
        patriotic, and successful community and business leaders: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) honors and commends refugee Lao and Hmong veterans and 
        their families who suffered, sacrificed, and died, along with 
        the armed forces and clandestine forces of the United States, 
        during the Indochina conflict in Laos; and
            (2) recognizes and deeply appreciates the important and 
        invaluable contributions of Lao- and Hmong-Americans to the 
        freedom-loving people of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
ex10-48.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.48

     

    
      
        Second
Amendment

        To

        Change
of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement

        


        This
Second Amendment (the
“First Amendment”) to Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement is made this 6h day
of April, 2009, by and between ImageWare Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on the one hand, and Charles AuBuchon, Vice President of Sales,
on the other hand (the “Executive”).  

                            

        WHEREAS, the Company and the
Executive entered into a Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement
dated as of October 31, 2005 which was then  subsequently amended on
the 27h day
of September, 2008 (the “Severance Agreement”); and

        


        WHEREAS, the Executive
continues to perform valuable services for the Company and the Company desires
to assure itself of the continuing services of Executive; and

        


        WHEREAS, in consideration of
the foregoing and in order to amend the terms of the Agreement and to provide
for the continued services of the Executive in accordance with the present
intent of the Company and the Executive.

        


        NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the
mutual covenants contained in the Severance Agreement, the parties do hereby
agree that the Severance Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

        


        Section “2. Term of
Agreement”  strike the
language “continue until June 30, 2009” and replace it with “continue until
December 31, 2009”.

        


         

         

        


        _________________________________                                            _________________________________

         

        ImageWare
Systems,
Inc.                                                                           Charles
AuBuchon
§ 429.158 Product determined noncompliant with regional standards. ( a ) If DOE determines a model of outdoor unit fails to meet the applicable regional standard(s) when tested in a combination certified by the same manufacturer, then the outdoor unit basic model will be deemed noncompliant with the regional standard(s). In accordance with § 429.102(a)(10), the outdoor unit manufacturer and/or private labeler is liable for distribution of noncompliant units in commerce.
( b ) If DOE determines a combination fails to meet the applicable regional standard(s) when tested in a combination certified by a manufacturer other than the outdoor unit manufacturer (e.g., ICM), then that combination is deemed noncompliant with the regional standard(s). In accordance with § 429.102(a)(10), the certifying manufacturer is liable for distribution of noncompliant units in commerce.
( c ) All such units manufactured and distributed in commerce are presumed to have been installed in a region where they would not comply with the applicable energy conservation standard; however, a manufacturer and/or private labeler may demonstrate through installer records that individual units were installed in a region where the unit is compliant with the applicable standards.
[81 FR 45404, July 14, 2016, as amended at 87 FR 64586, Oct. 25, 2022]
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 406 

Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the first official meeting between soldiers 

of the United States Army and soldiers of the Soviet Army at Torgau, 

Germany, and commending the excellent service of the 69th Infantry 

Division of the United States Army during World War II. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2005 

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the first official meeting 

between soldiers of the United States Army and soldiers 

of the Soviet Army at Torgau, Germany, and commending the excellent service of the 69th Infantry Division of the United States Army during World War II. 

Whereas World War II was fought in Europe, Asia, and Africa from 1939 to 1945, and involved, among others, the 

Allied armies of the United States and the Soviet Union 

in conflict with the Axis Powers of Nazi Germany and 

Imperial Japan; 

Whereas the defeat of Nazi Germany was critical to the 

spread of world peace, human rights, and democracy; 
2 

•HRES 406 IH 

Whereas members of the United States Armed Forces fought 

with great bravery across much of Western Europe, from 

the beaches of Normandy, France, to the center of Nazi 

power in Germany; 

Whereas the Soviet Armed Forces fought with great bravery 

across much of Russia and Eastern Europe, from Moscow to the center of Nazi power in Germany; 

Whereas the military defeat of Nazi Germany was contingent 

upon the ability of the Allied forces to advance upon Germany from both the Eastern and Western fronts in Europe; 

Whereas the first official meeting between these two Allied 

forces occurred when members of the 273rd Infantry 

Regiment of the 69th Infantry Division of the United 

States Army reached members of the 58th Guards Infantry Division of the Soviet Army on April 25, 1945, at 

Torgau, Germany; and 

Whereas surviving members of the 69th Infantry Division 

and its attached units will celebrate the 60th anniversary 

of their meeting with Soviet forces on August 27, 2005, 

during their 58th annual reunion in Louisville, Kentucky: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the 60th anniversary of the first 

3 official meeting between soldiers of the United 

4 States Army and soldiers of the Soviet Army at 

5 Torgau, Germany, on April 25, 1945; and 

6 (2) commends the excellent service that the offi7 cers and enlisted members of the 69th Infantry Divi-
3 

•HRES 406 IH 

1 sion of the United States Army provided during 

2 World War II. 

Æ
# 32.006 Reduction or suspension of contract payments upon finding of fraud.

- 32.006-3 Responsibilities. 
- 32.006-4 Procedures. 
- 32.006-5 Reporting. 

**Parent topic:**PART 32 – CONTRACT FINANCING
#### In the Matter of Bath Truck and Tractor Company, Inc., Petitioner, v. Vincent L. Tofany, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

— Determination unanimously modified by reducing the penalty to a six-month suspension and as so modified, determination confirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this article 78 proceeding transferred to this court pursuant to *884CPLR 7804 (subd. [g]), review is sought of 'respondent’s determination which revoked petitioner’s motor vehicle inspection station license. In our opinion, in the light of all the circumstances, the penalty was too severe. (Review of determination revoking inspection station license, transferred by order of Steuben Special Term. Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Moule and Bastow, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

§ 4.24 Assurances from institutions. ( a ) In the case of a grant, loan or contract involving Federal financial assistance to an institution of higher education, the assurance required by § 4.21 shall extend to admission practices and to all other practices relating to the treatment of students.
( b ) The assurance required with respect to an institution of higher education, hospital, or any other institution, insofar as the assurance relates to the institution's practices with respect to admission or other treatment of individuals as students, patients, or clients of the institution or to the opportunity to participate in the provision of services or other benefits to such individuals, shall be applicable to the entire institution.
[29 FR 19277, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended at 68 FR 51344, Aug. 26, 2003]