alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Adam Trebing, 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 tothis 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 prior to October 17, 2022, U.S. Bank Trust Company,National Association, as Trustee on and after October 17, 2022, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, Fintech Trust Advisors LLC d.b.a. CRED iQ,as Trust Advisor, CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant,PGIM Real Estate Loan Services, Inc. (formerly known as Prudential AssetResources, Inc.), as Primary Servicer, Computershare Trust Company, NationalAssociation, as Servicing Function Participant for the CertificateAdministrator, and Computershare Trust Company, National Association, asServicing Function Participant for the Custodian.

 

 

 

Dated:March 15,2023

 

 

/s/ Adam Trebing

Adam Trebing

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6376

MARQUEION JAMAL HARRISON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
MR. JACOBS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. ( 5:21

- hc

- 02118

- BO )

Submitted : August 2 9 , 2023 Decided: September 1, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Marqueion Harrison , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6376 Doc: 19 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Marqueion Harrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealabili ty will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedur al ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the recor d and conclude that Harrison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6376 Doc: 19 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### WASSON v. O’GARA COAL CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

May 29, 1912.)

No. 1,885.

Contracts (§ 348*) — Assumption of Contract — Presumption.

Where defendant purchased the mine of the Morris Coal Company which had a contract for the sale of coal to plaintiif, the fact that such contract with a written assignment indorsed thereon by the coal company was left by it, together with the deed, abstracts, and other eon-*771tracts, In the office of defendant’s attorney at the time the sale was closed, raised a presumption that defendant assumed the contract, which, however, was rebuttable by proof to the contrary.

pad. Note. — For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§1754-1780; Dec. Dig. § 348.*]

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Illinois.

Action by C. M. Wasson against the O’Gara Coal Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

L. O. Whitnel and W. Y. Choisser, for plaintiff in error.

M. S. Whitley, for defendant in error.

Before BAKER, SEAMAN, and KOHESAAT, Circuit Judges.

*

For other oases see same topic & § number in Deo. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes’

*

For other eases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

Wasson had a contract with the Morris Coal Company for the sale and delivery to him of certain amounts of coal. O’Gara obtained from the Morris Company an option to purchase its mine. In the option there was a provision that existing contracts between the Morris Company and its customers should be filled by O’Gara or his assigns. O’Gara elected to purchase for the O’Gara Coal Company. The deed to the O’Gara Company contained no assumption of the Wasson contract, nor did the O’Gara Company execute any separate instrument of assumption.

Wasson’s action being for damages on account of the O’Gara Company’s refusal to carry out the Morris Company’s contract, the burden of proving the assumption was on him. The option was purely executory, and any terms not embodied in the final transaction must be deemed waived. To show that his contract was included Wasson proved that his contract, with a written assignment indorsed thereon by the Morris Company to the O’Gara Company, was left by the Morris Company together with the deed, abstracts, and other contracts in the office of the attorney who acted for the O’Gara Company at the time the transaction was closed. The trial court treated this as prima facie evidence of an assumption. Was-son contends that it was irrebuttable. Inasmuch as the Wasson contract may have been among the other papers by oversight or fraud, the court properly permitted the O’Gara Company to prove that it explicitly rejected the Wasson contract and notified the Morris Company that the purchase would not be made if the Wasson contract was included. On Wasson’s behalf evidence in rebuttal of the O’Gara Company’s position was introduced; and the dispute of fact was submitted to the jury under instructions to which no exceptions were taken.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.. ■
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

College Transfer StudentsCommunity CollegesCurriculum EnrichmentEducational ChangeEnrollment InfluencesNontraditional StudentsReverse Transfer StudentsStudent CharacteristicsTwo Year College StudentsTwo Year Colleges

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Perser, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 283]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated March 3, 2005, which, after a hearing pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level three sex offender.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court’s determination to designate the defendant a level three sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]). The court properly assessed the defendant 15 points for drug or alcohol abuse based upon the admissions contained in the presentence report *(see People v Davis,*26 AD3d 364 [2006]; *People v Masters,*19 AD3d 387 [2005]; *People v Roland,*292 AD2d 271 [2002]). Furthermore, the grand jury minutes supported the court’s assessment of 10 points against the defendant for having had sexual contact with the victim “under clothing.” In addition, we reject the defendant’s contention that the settlement entered into by the parties in the case of *Doe v Pataki*(3 F Supp 2d 456 [1998]) barred the court from assessing five points against him in the release environment category. Although the subject stipulation prohibits points from being assessed in the release environment category against offenders who completed parole or probation prior to redetermination of their risk levels, the record demonstrates that the defendant’s term of parole was *768revoked before completion. Crane, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60882

AUDREY YOUNG, Individually, and as Guardian and Next Friend of Shana Young, Megan Young and Alex Young, Jr., minors and as Administratrix of the Estate of Alex Young, Deceased, and as Personal Representative of the Heirs at Law of Alex Young, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GEORGE ROBINSON, M.D.; MICHAEL MOSES, M.D., Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:95-CV-153-RR)

December 8, 1997

Before WISDOM, HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff Young waived Mississippi’s prohibition against ex

parte communication with a treating physician. We are left without

the requisite co ntest of the validity of this state rule. The2

issue is moot. We do not decide whether the order of the district

court is an appealable order.

DISMISSED.
Amendment dated February 24, 2010 to Employment Agreement - Andrew H. Tisch



 Exhibit 10.07 
 February 24, 2010 
 Mr. Andrew H. Tisch

 667 Madison Avenue 
 New York, New York 10065 
 Dear Mr. Tisch: 
 Reference is made to your Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Loews Corporation (the “Company”) dated
February 25, 2008 (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”). 
 This will confirm our agreement
that the Employment Agreement is amended as follows: 
 1. Term of Employment. The period of your
employment under and pursuant to the Employment Agreement is hereby extended for an additional period through and including March 31, 2011 upon all the terms, conditions and provisions of the Employment Agreement, as hereby amended. 

2. Compensation. You shall be paid as basic compensation (the “Basic Compensation”) for your services to
the Company and its subsidiaries under and pursuant to the Employment Agreement a salary at the rate of Nine Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand ($975,000) Dollars per annum through March 31, 2011. Basic Compensation shall be payable in accordance
with the Company’s customary payroll practices as in effect from time to time, and shall be subject to such increases as the Board of Directors of the Company, in its sole discretion, may from time to time determine. 
 3. Incentive Compensation Plan. In addition to receipt of Basic Compensation under the Employment Agreement, you
shall participate in the Incentive Compensation Plan for Executive Officers of the Company (the “Compensation Plan”) and shall be eligible to receive incentive compensation under the Compensation Plan as may be awarded in accordance with
its terms. 
 4. Other Compensation. The compensation provided pursuant to this Letter Agreement shall be
exclusive of compensation and fees, if any, to which you may be entitled as an officer or director of a subsidiary of the Company. 
 Except as herein modified or amended, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 







 Mr. Andrew H. Tisch 
 As of February 24, 2010 
 Page 2 
 If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding, would you please sign the enclosed duplicate copy of this Letter
Agreement at the place indicated below and return the same to us for our records. 

	
	
	Very truly yours,
	
	LOEWS CORPORATION


  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Gary W. Garson

		 	Gary W. Garson
		 	Senior Vice President


  

	
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:
	
	 /s/ Andrew H. Tisch

	 Andrew H. Tisch
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joan J. Smith, Appellant. Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 10,1980, which affirmed a decision of an Administrative Law Judge sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant to be ineligible for benefits for *962two days each week during the benefit period because she was not totally unemployed for the two days of each week, charging her with recoverable overpayments of $957.50 and imposing a forfeiture of 328 effective days for willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits. During the period in question, claimant baby sat at the YMCA for children of persons enrolled in a physical fitness program. The program was scheduled for two days per week, although claimant testified that she “wasn’t always there”. The baby sitting usually lasted for about two hours each day of the program, and initially claimant received $5 each day she baby sat. The director of the YMCA characterized the payment as reimbursement of expenses, rather than wages. The $5 payment was ultimately discontinued at claimant’s request. The question of whether a person is totally unemployed is a factual issue within the sole province of the board and its determination must be sustained if supported by substantial evidence *(Matter of Mantel [Ross],*67 AD2d 786; *Matter of Brandau [Levine],*52 AD2d 696; *Matter of Pal [Levine],*50 AD2d 1001). Since there is testimony that claimant baby sat on a regular basis and received remuneration, there is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding *(Matter of Staheli [Ross],*60 AD2d 670). The fact that claimant voluntarily discontinued receiving reimbursement for her services does not affect this conclusion. Moreover, “The fact that services are performed without apparent compensation is not controlling” *(Matter of Lach [Catherwood],*31 AD2d 663,664). Turning to the issue of willful misrepresentation, we conclude that so much of the board’s decision as ruled the overpayments recoverable and imposed a forfeiture of effective days must be reversed. Although claimant testified that she was familiar with the reporting requirements and that she marked her booklet in a manner indicating that she had done no work, she explained: “This was not work. This was something I love to do and I enjoy being with children and that’s why I was there.” Claimant also explained that any money she received from the YMCA was used to purchase supplies for the children. Under these circumstances, there is no evidence of any false statements or willful misrepresentation *(Matter of Staheli [Ross], supra;*see, also, *Matter of Duffy [Ross],*78 AD2d 735; *Matter of Czarniak [Ross],*60 AD2d 745). Decision modified, by reversing so much thereof as finds a willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits ruled to be recoverable and imposes a forfeiture of effective days, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Subpart 2809.2 - Qualifications

Requirements

Parent topic: PART 2809 - CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

2809.202 Policy.

The HCA or designee is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 9.202(a)(1).
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 390 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 390

 Congratulating Lance Armstrong on his seventh Tour de France victory 
  and his retirement and recognizing his dedication to helping others.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 26, 2005

   Mr. Smith of Texas (for himself, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Carter, and Mr. 
McCaul of Texas) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Congratulating Lance Armstrong on his seventh Tour de France victory 
  and his retirement and recognizing his dedication to helping others.

Whereas on July 24, 2005, Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France, the most 
        prestigious race in competitive cycling;
Whereas Lance Armstrong competed against the world's best cyclists for three 
        weeks, covering more than 2,000 miles of difficult and imposing terrain 
        in France and Germany through changing weather conditions;
Whereas his victory in 2005 is the seventh Tour de France win for Lance 
        Armstrong, establishing a new record for the event;
Whereas Lance Armstrong overcame seemingly insurmountable challenges in life to 
        reach the pinnacle of his cycling career;
Whereas Lance Armstrong's achievements are proof that hard work and perseverance 
        can turn dreams into reality;
Whereas after his victory Lance Armstrong announced that he will retire from the 
        sport;
Whereas Lance Armstrong has demonstrated the same level of commitment to 
        improving and enriching the lives of fellow cancer survivors as he has 
        in training for the Tour de France; and
Whereas his devotion to providing cancer survivors with the tools and knowledge 
        to live strong through the Lance Armstrong Foundation is recognized 
        throughout the United States and the world: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives congratulates Lance 
Armstrong on his seventh Tour de France victory and his well-deserved 
retirement and recognizes his dedication to helping others.
                                 <all>
```
§ 62.24 Extension of emergency access. ( a ) After the receipt of a request from any generator of low-level waste, or any Governor on behalf of any generator or generators in his or her State, for an extension of emergency access that was initially granted under § 62.21, the Commission shall make an initial determination of whether— ( 1 ) Emergency access continues to be necessary because of an immediate and serious threat to the public health and safety or the common defense and security;
( 2 ) The threat cannot be mitigated by any alternative that is consistent with public health and safety; and
( 3 ) The generator of low-level waste and the State have diligently though unsuccessfully acted during the period of the initial grant to eliminate the need for emergency access.
( b ) After making a determination pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the requirements specified in §§ 62.21(c) and 62.22 of this part, must be followed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 3.1A

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          IMCLONE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED

                Under Section 242 of the General Corporation Law
                            Of the State of Delaware

      The undersigned, being the President and CEO of IMCLONE SYSTEMS
INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation") DOES HEREBY CERTIFY as
follows:

      FIRST:            The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is
hereby amended so that Article FOURTH (a) shall read in its entirety as
follows:

            "FOURTH: (a) The total number of shares of capital stock which the
      Corporation shall have the authority to issue is one hundred and twenty
      million (120,000,000) shares of Common Stock with a par value of one
      tenth of one cent ($.001) per share and four million (4,000,000) shares
      of Preferred Stock with a par value of one dollar ($1.00) per share."

      SECOND:     That such amendment was duly adopted by the Board of
Directors of the Corporation and by the Stockholders of the Corporation in
accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

      IN WITNESS THEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation has been signed, and the statements made
herein affirmed as true under the penalties of perjury, this 12th day of June,
2000.

                                  /s/ Samuel D. Waksal
                                  Samuel D. Waksal,
                                  President and CEO

/s/ John B. Landes
-------------------------
John B. Landes, Secretary
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

 

CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SEDONA Corporation (“SEDONA”) on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anita M. Primo, VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of SEDONA Corporation certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of SEDONACorporation.

 

 
| Dated: May 17, 2010 | /s/ ANITA M. PRIMO                            |   |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                | Anita M. Primo                                |
|                | *Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer* |
|                | *(Principal Financial Officer)*               |

 

34

----