alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-34.4
(logo) Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Certified Public Accountants
333 Southeast Second Avenue
Suite 3600
Miami, FL 33131
USA

Tel: +1 305 372 3100
Fax: +1 305 372 3160
www.deloltte.com

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


LNR Partners, LLC
Miami Beach, Florida

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that LNR Partners, LLC (the "Company") complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities
transactions for which the Company served as special servicer, and that were
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December
31, 2013, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), (3)(i)(c), (3)(i)(d), (3)(ii),
(3)(iii), (3)(iv), (4)(v), (4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii),
(4)(xiv) and (4)(xv) which management has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the
servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were
limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the
period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have
included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included
in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect
noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period
specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or
reported by the Company 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's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2013 for the commercial mortgage-backed securities Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
February 28, 2014


Member of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
#### § 54.11 Public inspection of applications.

Applications and documents submitted to the Commission in connection with renewal applications may be made available for public inspection in accordance with the provisions of the regulations contained in 10 CFR part 2.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1045

#### Editorial Notes:Nomenclature changes to part 1045 appear at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023, and 88 FR 82238, Nov. 24, 2023.

§ 1045.215 How does DOE process an MDR appeal for DOE matter containing NSI?

Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1045 appear at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023, and 88 FR 82238, Nov. 24, 2023.

An appeal for NSI requested under the provisions of E.O. 13526 or successor orders is processed as follows:

(a) The Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security must act upon the appeal within 60 working days of its receipt. If no determination on the appeal has been issued at the end of this 60-day period, the requester may consider his or her administrative remedies to be exhausted and may seek a review by the ISCAP. When no determination can be issued within the applicable time limit, the appeal must nevertheless continue to be processed. On expiration of the time limit, DOE must inform the requester of the reason for the delay, of the date on which a determination may be expected to be issued, and of the requester's right to seek further review by the ISCAP. Nothing in this subpart precludes the appeal authority and the requester from agreeing to an extension of time for the decision on an appeal. The Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security must confirm any such agreement in writing and clearly specify the total time agreed upon for the appeal decision.

(b) The Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security's action on an appeal must be in writing and set forth the reason for the decision. DOE may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of requested information whenever the fact of its existence or nonexistence is itself classified under E.O. 13526 or successor orders.

(c) The requester has the right to appeal a final DOE decision, or a failure to provide a determination on an appeal within the allotted time, to the ISCAP for those appeals dealing with NSI. In cases where NSI documents also contain RD, FRD, or TFNI, the portions of the document containing RD, FRD, or TFNI must be deleted prior to forwarding the NSI and unclassified portions to the ISCAP for review.

[83 FR 66007, Dec. 21, 2018, as amended at 88 FR 82238, Nov. 24, 2023]
#### John M. Cofield *vs.*James McCabe *et al.*

Submitted on briefs June 29, 1894.

Reversed July 13, 1894.

No. 8875.

Verdict not supported by the evidence.

Verdict *held*to be contrary to the evidence.

Appeal by defendant, James McCabe, from a judgment of the District Court of Crow Wing County, *G. W. Holland,*J., entered January 31,1894, for $827.55.

James McCabe kept a saloon at Brainerd for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and Patrick McCabe was his bartender. On July 6, 1893, the plaintiff, John M. Cofield, a farmer, was there noisy and disorderly. Patrick McCabe called him into a back room, assaulted him, and broke his leg. James McCabe was not present. Plaintiff brought this action for assault and battery against both the Mc-Cabes, and obtained a verdict against both for $300. James McCabe moved for a new trial, but was refused, and judgment was entered on the verdict. James McCabe alone appeals.

*W. S. McClenahan,*for appellant.

*W. A. Fleming,*for respondent.

Gtlfillan, C. J.

It is impossible to sustain tbe verdict against the defendant James McCabe.

From the plaintiff’s own testimony, the assault on him by Patrick McCabe was no way connected with the business of his employer, James McCabe, who was not present, and knew nothing of it. According to that testimony, it ivas an independent act of Patrick, on his own account. The only particular in which the other testimony tends to vary the story as told by plaintiff is in its tending to show him the aggressor. The judgment must be reversed as to James McCabe.

Judgment reversed.

Buck, J., absent, sick, took no part.

(Opinion published 59 N. W. 1005.)
#### § 60.16 Site characterization plan required.

Before proceeding to sink shafts at any area which has been approved by the President for site characterization, DOE shall submit to the Director, for review and comment, a site characterization plan for such area. DOE shall defer the sinking of such shafts until such time as there has been an opportunity for Commission comments thereon to have been solicited and considered by DOE.

[51 FR 27162, July 30, 1986]
Subpart 1247.5—Ocean Transportation by

U.S.-Flag Vessels

Parent topic: PART 1247—TRANSPORTATION

1247.506 Procedures.

(a) The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is the enforcing agency of the cargo preference statutes.

MARAD can assist contractors in locating U.S.-flag carriers and determine when such services are

not available. MARAD can also assist contracting officers in evaluating costs, services, and other

matters regarding ocean transportation.

(d) If no transportation officer is available, the contracting officer shall submit a copy of the rated

“on board” bill of lading, for each shipment, no later than 20 days after the vessel's loading date for

exports and 30 days for imports as stated in 46 CFR 381.3. All non-vessel ocean common carrier bills

of lading should be accompanied by the underlying carrier's ocean bill of lading. The documents

shall be sent to the Maritime Administration, Office of Cargo and Commercial Sealift, MAR–620,

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590–0001. The bill of lading shall contain the

following information—

(1) Name of sponsoring Government agency or department;

(2) Name of vessel;

(3) Vessel flag of registry;

(4) Date of loading;

(5) Port of loading;

(6) Port of final discharge;

(7) Commodity description;

(8) Gross weight in kilos; and

(9) Total ocean freight revenue in U.S. dollars.
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.46 Particular activities requiring license amendment. ( a ) Unless expressly authorized in the license, a license amendment is required for any of the following activities: ( 1 ) Any action that would make emplaced high-level radioactive waste irretrievable or that would substantially increase the difficulty of retrieving the emplaced waste;
( 2 ) Dismantling of structures;
( 3 ) Removal or reduction of controls applied to restrict access to or avoid disturbance of the site and to areas outside the site where conditions may affect compliance with §§ 63.111 and 63.113;
( 4 ) Destruction or disposal of records required to be maintained under the provisions of this part;
( 5 ) Any substantial change to the design or operating procedures from that specified in the license, except as authorized in § 63.44; and
( 6 ) Permanent closure.
( b ) An application for an amendment must be filed, and will be reviewed, as specified in § 63.45.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Simcha Herzog, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report onForm 10-K of the WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2013-C11 (the "ExchangeAct periodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesrequired to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 ofRegulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as anexhibit to

this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Anymaterial instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank NationalAssociation, as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian, TrimontReal Estate Advisors, LLC (f/k/a TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc.), as TrustAdvisorprior to July 8, 2021, Fintech Trust Advisors LLC d.b.a. CRED iQ,as Trust Advisor on and after July 8, 2021, CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, asServicing Function Participant, PGIM Real Estate Loan Services, Inc.(formerly known as Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.), as Primary Servicer,Computershare Trust Company, National Association, as Servicing FunctionParticipant for the Certificate Administrator on and after November 1, 2021,and Computershare Trust Company, National Association, as Servicing FunctionParticipant for the Custodian on and after November 1, 2021.

 

 

 

Dated:March 21,2022

 

 

/s/ Simcha Herzog

Simcha Herzog

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### State of Kansas, *Appellee,*v. Larry B. Shrouf, *Appellant.*

No. 47,901

Opinion filed January 24, 1976.

*James*W. *Wilson,*of Wichita, was on the brief for the appellant.

*Curt T. Schneider,*attorney general, *Keith Sanborn,*district attorney, and *Stephen M. Joseph,*assistant district attorney, were on the brief for the appellee.

*Per Curiam:*

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,450,485
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,319,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               417,446
<PP&E>                                       2,543,804
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,038,253)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,693,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,045,658
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    345,455
<COMMON>                                       366,395
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,935,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,693,385
<SALES>                                      2,861,121
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,861,121
<CGS>                                        1,390,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,390,722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,040,723
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (578,248)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (578,248)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (578,248)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
img254000568_0.jpg
     780 Township Line Road  Yardley, PA 19067609-883-3900


Re: Servicer Compliance Statement

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Cenlar FSB, as servicer (“the Servicer”) pursuant to applicable servicing agreements governing the securities listed in Exhibit A, does certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period of 1/1/2023 to 12/31/2023 (the “Reporting Period”) and of the Servicer’s performance under the applicable servicing agreement 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 the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.


The undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 5th day of March 2024.

img254000568_1.jpg

David C. Schneider President

Cenlar FSB

Mailing Address:Cenlar FSB  425 Phillips Boulevard  Ewing, NJ 08618


---

img254000568_2.jpg








Exhibit A – Securities Covered in Cenlar’s Servicer Compliance Statement



|         |                                      |             |                                    |                       
|-------- | ------------------------------------ | ----------- | ---------------------------------- | ----------------------
|Investor | Servicer                             | Security    | * Period Subserviced by Cenlar FSB | Security Administrator
|RW0      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2012-6 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW2      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-2 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW3      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-3 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW4      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-4 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW5      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-5 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW6      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-6 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW7      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-7 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              
|RW8      | Redwood Residential Acquisition Corp | SEMT 2013-8 | 1/1 thru 12/31/23                  | Citibank              






---
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 the Quarterly Report of Sionix Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James
R. Currier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and
in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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, as amended;
  and,2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
    Report.










Date:
      February 16, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      James R. CurrierJames
      R. CurrierChairman,
      Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Executive Officer




A
certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed “filed” for
purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject
to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates
it by reference.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1166

___________________________ Victoria L. Haynes, also known as Victoria L. Bass lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Benton N. Bass lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs

____________ Submitted: November 3, 2020 Filed: November 6, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Victoria Haynes appeals following the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her diversity action against her ex-husband, Benton Bass.

1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, now retired.Upon de novo review, see Barse v. United States, 957 F.3d 883, 885 (8th Cir. 2020)

(standard of review), we agree with the district court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as the fraud claim was inextricably intertwined with the parties’ divorce action. See Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861-62 (8th Cir. 1994) (under domestic relations exception, federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear tort claims inextricably intertwined with property settlement incident to divorce proceeding). We find no error in the denial of Haynes’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, as the court lacked jurisdiction over her proposed amended complaint for the same reasons. See Reuter v. Jax Ltd., Inc., 711 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2013) (denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion and question of futility is reviewed de novo). However, we modify the dismissal of the action to be without prejudice. See Cty. of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 464-65 (8th Cir. 2004). We also deny Haynes’s appellate motion to disqualify Bass’s counsel. See Awnings v. Fullerton, 912 F.3d 1089, 1096 (8th Cir. 2019). The judgment is affirmed as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
§ 5.205 Educational institutions and other entities controlled by religious organizations. ( a ) *Exemption.* These Title IX regulations do not apply to any operation of an educational institution or other entity that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that application of these Title IX regulations would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.
( b ) *Exemption claims.* An educational institution or other entity that wishes to claim the exemption set forth in paragraph (a) of this section shall do so by submitting in writing to the designated agency official a statement by the highest-ranking official of the institution, identifying the provisions of these Title IX regulations that conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6347

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALBERT SHAW NELSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (5:95-cr-00333-CMC-5)

Submitted: July 18, 2017 Decided: July 20, 2017

Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Shaw Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Albert Shaw Nelson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his motion to 

reconsider the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of

sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Nelson, No. 

5:95-cr-00333-CMC-5 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2017). 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.

AFFIRMED