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

 

 

I, Leland F. Bunch, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D

required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on

Form 10-K of the Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C8 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a

whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to

state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of

the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading

with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other

information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered

by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in

this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in

the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their

obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for

asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment

of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required

to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB

and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to

this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material

instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in

this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information

provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer for the Chrysler East Building Mortgage Loan, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer for the Chrysler East Building Mortgage Loan, National Tax Search, LLC as Servicing Function Participant, NS Servicing II, LLC, as Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Trust Advisor for the Chrysler East Building Mortgage Loan, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Trust Advisor, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator for the Chrysler East Building Mortgage Loan, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian for the Chrysler East Building Mortgage Loan, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian.

 

 

Dated: March 27, 2015

 

/s/ Leland F. Bunch

 

Leland F. Bunch

Senior Vice President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
§ 75.2 Scope. ( a ) The regulations in this part apply to all persons licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or an Agreement State; who hold a certificate of compliance, construction permit or authorization issued by the NRC; who have filed an application with the NRC to construct a facility or to receive source or special nuclear material; or who possess source or special nuclear material subject to NRC regulation under 10 CFR Chapter I.
( b ) The regulations in this part do not apply to facilities or locations determined by the U.S. Government to be associated with activities or information of direct national security significance.
[83 FR 19609, May 4, 2018]
§ 60.44 Changes, tests, and experiments. ( a ) ( 1 ) Following authorization to receive and possess source, special nuclear, or byproduct material at a geologic repository operations area, the DOE may ( i ) make changes in the geologic repository operations area as described in the application,
( ii ) make changes in the procedures as described in the application, and
( iii ) conduct tests or experiments not described in the application, without prior Commission approval, provided the change, test, or experiment involves neither a change in the license conditions incorporated in the license nor an unreviewed safety question.
( 2 ) A proposed change, test, or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if ( i ) the likelihood of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the application is increased,
( ii ) the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the application is created, or
( iii ) the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any license condition is reduced.
( b ) The DOE shall maintain records of changes in the geologic repository operations area and of changes in procedures made pursuant to this section, to the extent that such changes constitute changes in the geologic repository operations area or procedures as described in the application. Records of tests and experiments carried out pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall also be maintained. These records shall include a written safety evaluation which provides the basis for the determination that the change, test, or experiment does not involve an unreviewed safety question. The DOE shall prepare annually, or at such shorter intervals as may be specified in the license, a report containing a brief description of such changes, tests, and experiments, including a summary of the safety evaluation of each. The DOE shall furnish the report to the appropriate NRC Regional Office shown in appendix D to part 20 of this chapter, by an appropriate method listed in § 60.4(a), with a copy to the Director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Any report submitted pursuant to this paragraph shall be made a part of the public record of the licensing proceedings.
[46 FR 13980, Feb. 25, 1981, as amended at 52 FR 31612, Aug. 21, 1987; 68 FR 58814, Oct. 10, 2003]
# L_2008112EN.01003201.xml

| 24.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/32

---

Corrigendum to Commission Directive 83/190/EEC of 28 March 1983 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 78/764/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the driver's seat on wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 109 of 26 April 1983
  )

On page 17, in the Annex, in the text which amends Annex II to Directive 78/764/EEC:

for:

| | ‘Item 2.5.1.5: In the Danish and French versions only, an adjective corresponding to ‘full’ shall be inserted to qualify the word corresponding to ‘travel’. |
| --- | --- |

‘Item 2.5.1.5: In the Danish and French versions only, an adjective corresponding to ‘full’ shall be inserted to qualify the word corresponding to ‘travel’.

| | Item 2.5.1.5: In the Danish and French versions only, an adjective corresponding to ‘full’ shall be inserted to qualify the word corresponding to ‘travel’. |
| --- | --- |

Item 2.5.1.5: In the Danish and French versions only, an adjective corresponding to ‘full’ shall be inserted to qualify the word corresponding to ‘travel’.

| | Item 2.5.1.7 shall be replaced by the following:’, |
| --- | --- |

Item 2.5.1.7 shall be replaced by the following:’,

read:

| | ‘Item 2.5.1.5: In the Danish and French versions only, an adjective corresponding to ‘full’ shall be inserted to qualify the word corresponding to ‘travel’. |
| --- | --- |

‘Item 2.5.1.5: In the Danish and French versions only, an adjective corresponding to ‘full’ shall be inserted to qualify the word corresponding to ‘travel’.

| | Item 2.5.1.6: The words ‘in the mean position of the suspension system’ shall be inserted after the word ‘load’. |
| --- | --- |

Item 2.5.1.6: The words ‘in the mean position of the suspension system’ shall be inserted after the word ‘load’.

| | Item 2.5.1.7 shall be replaced by the following:’. |
| --- | --- |

Item 2.5.1.7 shall be replaced by the following:’.

---
§ 719.47 What happens when more than one contractor is a party to a matter? ( a ) If more than one contractor is a party in a particular matter and the issues involved are similar for all the contractors, a single legal counsel designated by the General Counsel must either represent all of the contractors or serve as lead counsel, when the rights of the contractors and the Government can be effectively represented by a single legal counsel, consistent with the standards for professional conduct applicable in the particular matter. Contractors may propose to the General Counsel their preference for the individual or law firm to perform as the lead counsel for a particular matter.
( b ) If a contractor, having been afforded an opportunity to present its views concerning joint or lead representation, does not acquiesce in the designation of one retained legal counsel to represent a number of contractors, or serve as lead counsel, then the legal costs of such contractor are not reimbursable by the Department, unless the contractor demonstrates that it was reasonable for the contractor to incur such expenses.
#### PEOPLE v. LYNCH.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 27, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Daniel Lynch.

No opinion. This motion must be reserved. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1102.
§ 770.5 How does DOE notify persons and entities that defense nuclear facility real property is available for transfer for economic development? ( a ) Field Office Managers annually make available to Community Reuse Organizations, local government, and Tribal nations, and other persons and entities a list of real property at defense nuclear facilities that DOE has identified as appropriate for transfer for economic development. Field Office Managers may use any effective means of publicity to notify potentially-interested persons or entities of the availability of the list.
( b ) Upon request, Field Office Managers provide to interested persons and entities relevant information about listed real property, including information about a property's physical condition, environmental, safety and health matters, and any restrictions or terms of transfer.
[65 FR 10689, Feb. 29, 2000, as amended at 78 FR 67927, Nov. 13, 2013]
PGI 237.102-70 Prohibition on contracting for firefighting or security-guard functions.       (c)(i) To ensure that the personnel limitations in DFARS 237.102-70(c)(1)(iv) are not exceeded, there is an office of primary responsibility (OPR) within each department or agency that is responsible for managing the total number of security-guard personnel on contract for the department or agency.          (ii) Before finalizing a contract action that affects the number of security-guard personnel on contract, the contracting officer shall request, from the requiring activity, evidence of the OPR’s approval for the contract action. This requirement also applies to renewal or exercise of options for the same number of security-guard personnel, to ensure compliance with the statutory limitations/reductions specified for each fiscal year.          (iii) If the evidence of approval is not provided by the requiring activity, the contracting officer shall directly contact the applicable OPR for approval before finalizing the contract action. OPRs are as follows:          (A) U.S. Army:          HQ Department of the Army          Office of the Provost Marshal General          2800 Army Pentagon          Washington, DC 20310          Phone: 703-695-4210 or 703-614-2597.          (B) U.S. Navy:          Commander, Navy Installations          Command (CNIC) N3          2715 Mitscher Road, Suite 300          Anacostia Annex          Washington, DC 20373          Phone: 202-409-4053.          (C) U.S. Marine Corps:          HQ U.S. Marine Corps          Assistant Deputy Commandant, Plans, Policy, &          Operations (Security)          3000 Marine Corps Pentagon          Washington, DC 20350          Phone: 571-201-3633.          (D) U.S. Air Force:          HQ Air Force          Directorate of Security Forces          Programs & Resources Division (A7SX)          1340 AF Pentagon          Washington, DC 20330          Phone: 703-588-0027 or 703-588-0012.          (E) Pentagon Force Protection Agency:          Pentagon Force Protection Agency          9000 Defense Pentagon          Washington, DC 20301          Phone: 703-693-3685.    **Parent topic:** PGI 237.102 Policy.
exv10w4






Exhibit 10.4




SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC.

2005 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN




          WHEREAS, Navigant Consulting, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Navigant Consulting, Inc.
2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as Amended (the “Plan”);




          WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan with respect to the discretion of the
Compensation Committee in connection with the vesting of Stock Awards and Performance Unit Awards;




          NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 5.2 of the Plan, the
Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the date hereof:




     1. Section 3.6(a) is hereby amended by deleting the phrase “, unless otherwise determined by
the Committee” at the end of the last sentence thereof.



     2. Section 4.3(a) is hereby amended by deleting the phrase “, unless otherwise determined by
the Committee” at the end of the last sentence thereof.



          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has cause this instrument to be executed as of
December 18, 2009.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
William M. Goodyear
 	 
	 	 	Its: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
EX-34.10
(logo) Grant Thornton

Audit * Tax * Advisory

Grant Thornton LLP
201 South College Street
Suite 2500
Charlotte, NC 28244

T 704.632.3500

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Board of Directors

Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria ("Management's Report"), that Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. (the
"Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2013, except for those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A)
within Exhibit A. The transactions covered by this report are only those
transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust, senior trust or
operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the "Platform").
Reference Exhibit B for the transactions covered by this examination. Management
is responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the
Platform based on our examination.


Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of 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 for the Platform and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting
the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities
related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our
testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was
not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to
the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company'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's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria.


1


(page)


In our opinion, management's assertion that Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc.
complied with the applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit A and
Exhibit B as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013 for the Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


Charlotte, North Carolina

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

March 1, 2014


2
#### Janet E. Shipley, Respondent, v. Peter M. Shipley, Appellant.

Order entered January 12, 1970, awarding temporary alimony in the sum of $75 per week, $175 per week as and for child support, commencing November 25, 1969, and $1,500 counsel fee, unanimously modified on the law and the facts to the extent of reducing the award of temporary alimony to $60 per week, child support to the sum of $140 per week and counsel fee to the sum of $1,000, with leave to plaintiff to apply to the trial court for an additional allowance of counsel fee if warranted. The eighth ordering paragraph is modified in the exercise of discretion to limit the prohibition to provide only that the defendant shall not have the children in the presence or companionship of the alleged paramour. As so modified, the order appealed from is otherwise affirmed, without costs to either party. In view of the husband’s earnings and the additional expenses now being borne by him voluntarily, the higher awards are not warranted. Nor is there any valid reason shown why the prohibition in the eighth ordering paragraph should be so extensive. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli and Tilzer, JJ.
§ 429.45 Automatic commercial ice makers. ( a ) *Sampling plan for selection of units for testing.* ( 1 ) The requirements of § 429.11 are applicable to automatic commercial ice makers; and
( 2 ) For each basic model of automatic commercial ice maker selected for testing, a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that any represented value of energy use, condenser water use, or other measure of consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of: ( i ) The mean of the sample, where: And, x̄ is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and xi is the ith sample; or,
( ii ) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.10, where: And x̄ is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95 percent two-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from appendix A to this subpart).
( 3 ) The harvest rate of a basic model is the mean of the measured harvest rates for each tested unit of the basic model, based on the same tests to determine energy use and condenser water use, if applicable. Round the mean harvest rate to the nearest pound of ice per 24 hours (lb/24 h) for harvest rates above 50 lb/24 h; round the mean harvest rate to the nearest 0.1 lb/24 h for harvest rates less than or equal to 50 lb/24 h.
( b ) *Certification reports.* ( 1 ) The requirements of § 429.12 are applicable to automatic commercial ice makers; and
( 2 ) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information: The maximum energy use in kilowatt hours per 100 pounds of ice (kWh/100 lbs ice), the maximum condenser water use in gallons per 100 pounds of ice (gal/100 lbs ice), the harvest rate in pounds of ice per 24 hours (lbs ice/24 hours), the type of cooling, and the equipment type.
[76 FR 12451, Mar. 7, 2011; 76 FR 24776, May 2, 2011, as amended at 87 FR 65899, Nov. 1, 2022]
§ 600.111 Pre-award policies. ( a ) *Use of Grants and Cooperative Agreements, and Contracts.* In each instance, the DOE shall decide on the appropriate award instrument (i.e., grant, cooperative agreement, or contract). The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act (31 U.S.C. 6301-08) governs the use of grants, cooperative agreements and contracts. A grant or cooperative agreement shall be used only when the principal purpose of a transaction is to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by Federal statute. The statutory criterion for choosing between grants and cooperative agreements is that for the latter, “substantial involvement is expected between the executive agency and the State, local government, or other recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated in the agreement.” Contracts shall be used when the principal purpose is acquisition of property or services for the direct benefit or use of the Federal Government.
( b ) *Public Notice and Priority Setting.* DOE will, whenever practical, notify the public of its intended funding priorities for discretionary grant programs, unless funding priorities are established by Federal statute.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 18 2002

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-5018

STEVEN LYNN MANN,

Defendant-Appellant.

(D.C. No. 01-CR-18-C)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before EBEL, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Steven Lynn Mann appeals his conviction and life sentence, arguing the

district court erred by (1) not suppressing evidence arising out of three searches; (2)

admitting into evidence a videotape showing him manufacturing methamphetamine and

exchanging methamphetamine for sex; (3) permitting a Drug Enforcement Agency agent

to extrapolate the total amount of methamphetamine Mann could have manufactured

based solely on witnesses’ testimony about pseudoephedrine sold to Mann; (4) failing to

remedy the Government’s pretrial misrepresentation that it had offered no promises or
2

inducements to Government witnesses; and (5) sentencing Mann to a disproportionate

sentence as compared to his co-conspirators. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. 

The parties to this case are familiar with its facts and procedural history, and we

will not repeat them here. When reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to

suppress, we accept the district court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous. United

States v. Price, 265 F.3d 1097, 1104 (10th Cir. 2001). We review de novo the legal

question of whether the officers conducting the searches complied with the Fourth

Amendment. Id. We review the trial court’s rulings on the admission of evidence,

including expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Velarde, 214

F.3d 1204, 1208 (10th Cir. 2000) (expert testimony); United States v. Simpson, 152 F.3d

1241, 1248 (10th Cir. 1998) (evidence generally). We review de novo a claim that the

Government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. United States v. Molina, 75 F.3d

600, 602 (10th Cir. 1996). We review for an abuse of discretion Mann’s claim the district

court sentenced him to a disparately harsh sentence. United States v. Allen, 24 F.3d

1180, 1188 (10th Cir. 1994). After reviewing the record and the briefs, and hearing oral 
3

argument, we find no reversible error.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge