alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(logo)****CURCIO

+COHEN

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Managing Member

Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC

New York, NY

 

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’sReport on Assessment of 2016 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC withRegulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”),that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”) complied withthe servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December31, 2016, excluding those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A) within ExhibitB to Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report areonly those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisoror operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the“Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. ReferenceExhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by thisexamination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance withthe applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinionon management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of a selectedsample of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whetherthe Company performed those selected activities in compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria during the specified period. Our procedures werelimited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report. Our examination was notdesigned to detect material noncompliance arising from errors that may haveoccurred prior to or subsequent to our tests, that may have affected theCompany’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’sReport with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A toManagement’s Report as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, forthe Platform, is fairly stated in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Curcio & Cohen,CPA’s, P.C.

 

 

New York, NY

February 2, 2017

 

 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTSPC 7 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 1500 NEW YORK NY 10001

TEL: 212 557-9800  FAX:212 557 9819   WEBSITE: WWW.CWCCPAFIRM.COM
#### Beverly Brennan v. Gull Contracting Co., Inc., et al.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Concur — McGivern, J. P., Nunez, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 380 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 380

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 26, 2005.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 22) to reform the postal laws of the United States. The first reading 
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Government Reform. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be 
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Government Reform now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. 
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report 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. All points of order against such amendments are waived. 
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
ex10-23.htm


    
      

      

    

    EXHIBIT
10.23

    
       

       

      LOAN
AGREEMENT

      June 10,
2009

      


      Richard N. Jeffs (the
“Lender”) of 4 Montpelier Street, Suite 521, London, SW71EE, advanced US$7,500 (the “Principal Sum”)
to Red Metal Resources Ltd. (the “Borrower”) of 195 Park Avenue, Thunder Bay,
Ontario, P7B 1B9.  The Lender advanced the funds on June 10,
2009

       

      The
Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest
calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of 8% per year (the “Interest”)
from June 10, 2009..  The Borrower is liable for repayment for the
Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs in
trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.

       

      The
Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the
Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.

       

      
        
          	
                  LENDER

                  Richard N.
      Jeffs

                	 	 	
                  BORROWER

                  Red Metal Resources
      Ltd.

                	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Per:	 	 	Per:	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
                  /s/
      Richard N.
      Jeffs  

                	 	 	
                  /s/
      Caitlin
      Jeffs

                	 
	
                  Richard
      N. Jeffs 

                	 	 	
                  Authorized
      Signatory

                	 


        

      

       

      
        
          
          

        

        
          1

          
            

          

        

        
          
          

        

      

      


      PROMISSORY
NOTE

       

      
        	Principal
      Amount:  US$7,500	June 10,
    2009


      

       

       

      For value received Red
Metal Resources Ltd., (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand to the order of
Richard N. Jeffs (the “Lender”) the sum
of $7,500 lawful money of United States of America (the “Principal Sum”)
together with interest on the Principal Sum from June 10, 2009 (“Effective
Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate
as defined below.

      


      For the
purposes of this promissory note, Interest Rate means 8 per cent per
year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded
monthly not in advance from and including the Effective Date (for an effective
rate of 8.3% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the
Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.

      


      The
Borrower may repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any
time.

      


      The
Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour
of this promissory note.

      


      
        
          	 	 	 	
                  BORROWER

                  Red
      Metal Resources Ltd.

                	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Per:	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
                   

                	 	 	
                  “Caitlin
      Jeffs”

                	 
	
                   

                	 	 	
                  Authorized
      signatory
(June 11, 1970)

#### In the Matter of Charles W. Altieri, Appellant, v. Everett F. McNab et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, and Joseph J. Gallo et al., Respondents.

-In a proceeding to invalidate the certificate filling vacancies after declination, which designated respondent Joseph J. Gallo, as a candidate in the Conservative Party Primary Election to be held on June 23, 1970 for the Party position of County Committeeman in the Town of Islip, 29th Election District, 3rd Assembly District, County of Suffolk, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 4, 1970, which directed the respondent Board of Elections to place the name of said respondent candidate in the appropriate district pursuant to said certificate. Judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Christ, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
#### In re WILSON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1914.)

In the matter of Robert H. Wilson.

No opinion. Matter referred to Hon. John Clinton Gray, to take testimony and report to the court, together with Ms opinion thereon. See, also, 163 App. Div. 862, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1118.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Helaine M. Kaplan, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filedin respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the COMM 2013-CCRE6 Mortgage Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder 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 requiredto 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 underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities requiredto be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been includedas an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to meby the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Divisionof PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, asOperating Advisor, and CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant.

 

 

 

Dated: March 16,2022
 

 

/s/ Helaine M. Kaplan

 

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### § 932.10 Lot.

*Lot* means the total net weight of natural condition olives of any one variety delivered to a handler at any one time.
PGI 225.772-3 Procedures.       (1) Forward any information required in accordance with 225.772-3 or requests for an exception to DPC/CP via email at osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.asda-dp-c-contractpolicy@mail.mil.          (2) Consult with DPC/CP, as required in accordance with 225.772-3(c)(2), via email at osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.asda-dp-c-contractpolicy@mail.mil.    **Parent topic:** PGI 225.772 Prohibition on acquisition of certain foreign commercial satellite services.
Editorial Note on Part 34
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 34 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 34.41 Conducting industrial radiographic operations. ( a ) Whenever radiography is performed at a location other than a permanent radiographic installation, the radiographer must be accompanied by at least one other qualified radiographer or an individual who has at a minimum met the requirements of § 34.43(c). The additional qualified individual shall observe the operations and be capable of providing immediate assistance to prevent unauthorized entry. Radiography may not be performed if only one qualified individual is present.
( b ) All radiographic operations conducted at locations of use authorized on the license must be conducted in a permanent radiographic installation, unless specifically authorized by the Commission.
( c ) A licensee may conduct lay-barge, offshore platform, or underwater radiography only if procedures have been approved by the Commission or by an Agreement State.
( d ) Licensees will have until June 27, 1998, to meet the requirements for having two qualified individuals present at locations other than a permanent radiographic installation as specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
[62 FR 28963, May 28, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 37061, July 9, 1998]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 30, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50745

Summary Calendar

 

DIONICIO A. CRUZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS PAROLE DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-02-CV-310

--------------------

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dionicio A. Cruz, a Texas parolee, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, wherein he

challenged the retroactive application of the State of Texas’ Super

Intensive Supervision Program (“SISP”) as a condition of his

parole. The district court granted Cruz a certificate of

appealability on the issue whether SISP violates the Ex Post Facto

Clause by subjecting Cruz to greater punishment on parole.

Cruz argues that: (1) he is entitled to the benefit of the
2

parole laws in effect at the time of his conviction and subsequent

parole violation and (2) the retroactive application of SISP

constitutes a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause because the

SISP provisions are more onerous than the former parole laws. He

has also filed a motion for injunctive relief in this court. 

Texas prisoners have no constitutional expectancy of parole.

See Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997). Thus, 

to the extent Cruz argues that he is entitled to the benefit of the

parole laws that were in effect at the time of his state conviction

and subsequent parole violation, he has not stated a violation of

a constitutional right. See Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 32 (5th

Cir. 1995). 

To the extent that Cruz argues that SISP violates the Ex Post

Facto Clause by increasing the punishment for his offense, his

argument fails. The only SISP condition that Cruz specifically

challenges on appeal is the State’s use of electronic monitoring.

In Vineyard v. Keesee, No. 95-10132 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 1995)

(unpublished), slip. op. at 3-5, this court held that changes in

Texas parole laws imposing electronic monitoring, urinalysis,

driving restrictions, and curfew did not constitute an ex post

facto violation. In light of Vineyard, Cruz has not stated a

violation of a constitutional right. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.3.

Because Cruz has failed to establish a violation of his

constitutional rights, he is not entitled to habeas relief. See

Orellana, 65 F.3d at 31.
3

In his request for injunctive relief, Cruz seeks to enjoin the

State from impeding his access to the law library. In light of the

disposition of this case, Cruz cannot make the showing required for

obtaining an injunction because he cannot demonstrate a substantial

likelihood of success on the merits. See Lindsay v. City of San

Antonio, 821 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
#### § 52.173 Duration of manufacturing license.

A manufacturing license issued under this subpart may be valid for not less than 5, nor more than 15 years from the date of issuance. A holder of a manufacturing license may not initiate the manufacture of a reactor less than 3 years before the expiration of the license even though a timely application for renewal has been docketed with the NRC. Upon expiration of the manufacturing license, the manufacture of any uncompleted reactors must cease unless a timely application for renewal has been docketed with the NRC.
§ 431.404 Imported electric motors. ( a ) Under sections 331 and 345 of the Act, any person importing an electric motor into the United States must comply with the provisions of the Act and of this part, and is subject to the remedies of this part.
( b ) Any electric motor offered for importation in violation of the Act and of this part will be refused admission into the customs territory of the United States under rules issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, except that the Secretary of the Treasury may, by such rules, authorize the importation of such electric motor upon such terms and conditions (including the furnishing of a bond) as may appear to the Secretary of the Treasury appropriate to ensure that such electric motor will not violate the Act and this part, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States.
[76 FR 12505, Mar. 7, 2011]
#### CARRIZZO, Respondent, v. NEW YORK, S. & W. R. Co., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1914.)

Action by George Carrizzo against the New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Gerald Frazier, Appellant, v Edward R. Hammock, as Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole, et al., Respondents.

Order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated February 1, 1980, affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see *People ex rel. Ternaku v LeFevre,*58 AD2d 932). Hopkins, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Employment Arrangement with Joel D. Kaplan



 Exhibit 10(ll) 
 Joel D. Kaplan 
 Employment Arrangement 
 On October 19, 2009, Joel D. Kaplan was hired as the new Executive Vice President for Public Policy and External Affairs of Energy Future Holdings
Corp. (the “Company”). In connection with his employment, the Company entered into an employment arrangement with Mr. Kaplan. As compensation for his services, Mr. Kaplan will be paid an annual base salary equal to $450,000 with
the ability to earn an annual cash bonus equal to 70% of his base salary if he achieves certain annual performance targets established by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”). Such annual cash bonus may be increased to an
amount equal to 200% of his base salary based on achievement of certain superior annual performance targets established by the Board. The Company will also pay Mr. Kaplan a commuting allowance of $8,333 per month for the first two years of his
employment with the Company. The employment arrangement also entitles Mr. Kaplan to receive other forms of customary compensation such as certain health and welfare benefits, certain perquisites and reimbursement of certain business expenses.

 In addition, Mr. Kaplan received a grant of stock options under the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan for Key Employees of Energy Future
Holdings Corp. and Affiliates (Stock Option Plan) at a strike price of $3.50 per share. 1,125,000 of Mr. Kaplan’s new stock options are time-vested options that will vest 20% per year over a five-year period beginning October 29,
2009 and 375,000 are performance vesting options, which vest in 20% increments on each of the first five anniversaries of December 31, 2009, subject to the Company’s achievement of the annual management EBITDA target for the given fiscal
year (or certain cumulative performance targets) as detailed in the stock option agreements. 
 Mr. Kaplan’s employment arrangement
includes customary non-compete and non-solicitation provisions that generally restrict Mr. Kaplan’s ability to compete with the Company or solicit its customers or employees for his own personal benefit during the term of the employment
agreement and 18 months after the employment arrangement expires or is terminated.
#### § 474.1 Purpose and Scope.

This part contains procedures for calculating a value for the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy of electric vehicles, as required by 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(2). The petroleum-equivalent fuel economy value is intended to be used by the Environmental Protection Agency in calculating corporate average fuel economy values pursuant to regulations at 40 CFR Part 600—Fuel Economy of Motor Vehicles.
§ 460.4 Energy conservation standards. ( a ) *General.* A manufactured home must comply with the energy conservation standards specified for the applicable tier as presented in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) *Tier 1.* A single-section manufactured home (*i.e.,* a Tier 1 manufactured home) must comply with all applicable requirements in subparts B and C of this part.
( c ) *Tier 2.* A multi-section manufactured home (*i.e.,* a Tier 2 manufactured home) must comply with all applicable requirements in subparts B and C of this part.
936 A.2d 849

#### In the Matter of the REINSTATEMENT OF Shuan Haig Macaulay ROSE to the Bar of Maryland.

Misc. Docket AG No. 39,

Sept. Term, 2007.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 5, 2007.

ORDER

The Court having considered the Petition of Shuan Haig Macaulay Rose for Reinstatement and the response of Bar Counsel filed thereto, it is this 5th day of December, 2007

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the petition be, and it is hereby, GRANTED, and the petitioner, Shuan Haig Macaulay Rose, is reinstated to the practice of law in this State, and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall replace the name of Shuan Haig Macaulay Rose upon the register of attorneys entitled to practice law in this State and certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State.