alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 34.1




Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Management Committee


BMW Financial Services NA, LLC





We have examined BMW Financial Services NA, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange  Commission's Regulation AB for Asset-Backed Securities, BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2013-1 (except for the servicing criteria described in the following paragraph), which the Company has determined as being applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2013 and for the period from January 24, 2013 to December 31, 2013. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria based on our examination.





The Company has determined that the servicing criteria in Items 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x)(A)-(C), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv) are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset−backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2013 and for the period from January 24, 2013 to December 31, 2013.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation 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 servicing criteria specified in the first paragraph of this report and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. 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 specified in the first paragraph.





In our opinion, BMW Financial Services NA, LLC complied, in all material respects, with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of December 31, 2013 and for the period from January 24, 2013 to December 31, 2013.




/s/ CohnReznick LLP







Roseland, New Jersey


March 21, 2014
§ 75.43 Circumstances requiring advance notification. ( a ) Each person subject to the Safeguards Agreements shall give advance written notification to the NRC regarding the international and domestic transfers specified in this section.
( b ) *Exports.* Notification shall be given of any proposed shipment of nuclear material for peaceful purposes under an export license issued pursuant to part 110 of this chapter, in an amount exceeding one effective kilogram, directly or indirectly to any non-nuclear-weapon state (as referred to in Article III(2) of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 21 U.S.T. 483). If the licensee anticipates that it will make two or more shipments for peaceful purposes, within any period of 90 days, directly or indirectly to destinations in the same non-nuclear-weapon state, notification shall be given of each shipment if the aggregate quantity of nuclear material to be transferred exceeds one effective kilogram.[2]
( c ) *Imports.* ( 1 ) Notification shall be given (to the fullest extent possible on the basis of available information) with respect to nuclear material which immediately prior to export is subject to safeguards, under an agreement with the IAEA, in the country from which the material, directly or indirectly, is being exported. Such notification is only required, however, if the quantities of nuclear material are as specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) Notification shall be given with respect to any proposed import of nuclear material described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section in an amount exceeding one effective kilogram. If the licensee anticipates that it will receive two or more shipments of such nuclear material, within any 90-day period from points of origin in the same country, notification shall be given with respect to each shipment if the aggregate quantity of such nuclear material to be received exceeds one effective kilogram.
( d ) *Domestic transfers.* Notification must be given regarding any shipments of nuclear material (other than small quantities in the form of samples containing less than 0.01 effective kilogram per sample) to a non-eligible destination. As used in this paragraph, a *non-eligible destination* means any destination in the United States other than a facility on the Eligible Facilities List.
[45 FR 50711, July 31, 1980, as amended at 73 FR 78613, Dec. 23, 2008; 83 FR 19614, May 4, 2018] Footnotes -
75.43
[2] All foreign countries, with the exception of the People's Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, are non-nuclear-weapon states. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Article IX(3).
#### § 708.8 Application to pending cases.

The procedures in this part apply in any complaint proceeding filed with the Head of Field Element or EC Director, as appropriate, on or after the effective date of this part.
#### Esther Taylor, Individually and as Executrix of Everett H. Taylor, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 44364.)

Judgement reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and judgment granted in favor of claimants in the sum of $4,000, with interest from July 17, 1964, in accordance with the following Memorandum: The trial court erred in dismissing the complaint at the close of the evidence upon the ground that claimants had failed to make out a claim against the State. Claimants are the owners of property located on the south side of Route 175 in the Town of Onondaga upon which a retail store has been operated for some years. Following reconstruction of the State highway in 1963 and 1964, during which the grade of the highway was raised above the level of claimants’ property, the State constructed a depressed concrete drainage gutter two and one-half to three feet deep along the south side of the road in front of claimants’ property. As a result of this gutter, vehicles going to and from claimants’ store strike their tailpipes and bumpers on the concrete, and snow, ice, dirt and gravel collect in the gutter. Water accumulates to a depth of 22 inches and spreads over the surrounding area. By reason of these conditions, delivery trucks and customers approaching claimants’ premises often use the driveway of a neighboring property owner rather than traverse the gutter in front of claimants’ store. Upon this record we find that the reconstruction of Route 175 with the depressed gutter left no suitable means of access to claimants’ property, for which damages should be awarded. *(Meloon Bronze Foundry*v. *State of New York,*6 A D 2d 993.) *“*Suitable access now is any access by which entrance may be had to a property without difficulty ” *(Slepian*v. *State of New York,*48 Misc 2d 340, 342, quoted with approval in *Priestly*v. *State of New York,*23 N Y 2d 152, 155), and suitability is related to the highest and best use of the property. *(Priestly*v. *State of New York, supra,*p. 156.) Tested by these standards, the access available to claimants’ commercial premises was not suitable. Testimony received at the trial as to the difference in market value before and after the deprivation of suitable access supports an award of $4,000 for the damages sustained. (4 Nichols, Eminent Domain [3d ed.], § 14.2431.) All concur, except Witmer and Henry, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm in the following Memorandum: In our opinion, the decision was not against the weight of the evidence. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims granting motion to dismiss claim.) Present — Del Veechio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 1 9 , 2016 

# Order

Clerk August 1 9 , 2016

15 4172

LORI CICHEWICZ

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

, SC: 15 4172

v COA: 312806

Oakland CC: 2011

- 120900

- NH

MICHAEL S. SALESIN and MICHAEL S.

SALESIN, M.D., P.L.C.

,

Defendants

- Appellants,

and

WALNUT LAKE OB/GYN, P.L.L.C.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the application for leave to appeal is

ADMINISTRATIVELY C LOSED because it was filed under the incorrect Court of

Appeals docket number. The Clerk’s Office has re

- docketed this application for leave to

appeal as Supreme Court docket number 154 290 , arising out of Court of Appeals docket

number 330301.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-11355

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JARED WILLIAM SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-324-1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jared William Smith has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Smith has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant

portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Smith’s response. We concur 

* 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

July 23, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-11355 Document: 00515500984 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2020
No. 19-11355

2

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-11355 Document: 00515500984 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2020
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 634 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 634

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 29, 2017.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
     Committee on Foreign Affairs: Mr. Curtis.
     Committee on Homeland Security: Mr. Bacon.
     Committee on Small Business: Mr. Curtis.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

29–011 2004

108th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 108–193 

NOTIFICATION TO ENTER INTO A FREE TRADE 

AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF BAHRAIN 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ENTER INTO A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF BAHRAIN, IN ACCORDANCE 

WITH SECTION 2105(a)(1)(A) OF THE TRADE ACT OF 2002 (PUB. 

L. 107–210), PURSUANT TO 19 U.S.C. 2112(e)(1) 

JUNE 16, 2004.—Message and accompanying papers referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(1) 

To the Congress of the United States: 

Consistent with section 2105(a)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 2002, 

(Public Law 107–210; the ‘‘Trade Act’’), I am pleased to notify the 

Congress of my intent to enter into a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) 

with the Government of Bahrain. 

This agreement will create new opportunities for America’s workers, farmers, businesses, and consumers by eliminating barriers in 

trade with Bahrain. Entering into an FTA with Bahrain will not 

only strengthen our bilateral ties with this important ally, it will 

also advance my goal of a U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area 

(MEFTA) by 2013. 

Consistent with the Trade Act, I am sending this notification at 

least 90 days in advance of signing the United States-Bahrain FTA. 

My Administration looks forward to working with the Congress in 

developing appropriate legislation to approve and implement this 

free trade agreement. 

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 15, 2004. 

Æ
Case 2:06-cv-00668-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 07/26/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00668-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 07/26/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00668-MHT-DRB Document 1 Filed 07/26/2006 Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Frank Acierno, Appellant, v. Carl Lamprecht et al., Constituting the Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Floral Park, Respondents.

Judgement of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 28, 1966, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. *(Matter of Karras*v. *Michaelis,*19 N Y 2d 449; *Matter of Acierno*v. *Barr,*28 A D 2d 541; cf. *Matter of Fulling*v. *Palumbo,*21 N Y 2d 30.) Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
#### § 603.1305 Program income.

Gross income earned by the recipient or a participant that is generated by a supported activity or earned as a direct result of a TIA. Program income includes but is not limited to: income from fees for performing services; the use or rental of real property, equipment, or supplies acquired under a TIA; the sale of commodities or items fabricated under a TIA; and license fees and royalties on patents and copyrights. Interest earned on advances of Federal funds is not program income.
§ 600.8 Funding Opportunity Announcement. ( a ) *General.* Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA) include any issuance used to announce funding opportunities that would result in the award of a discretionary grant, cooperative agreement, or technology investment agreement, whether it is called a program announcement, program notice, solicitation, broad agency announcement, research announcement, notice of program interest, or something else. ( 1 ) A Program Assistant Secretary (or official of equivalent authority) may annually issue a program notice describing research areas in which financial assistance is being made available. Such notice shall also state whether the research areas covered by the notice are to be added to those listed in a previously issued program rule. If they are to be included, then applications received as a result of the notice may be treated as having been in response to that previously published program rule. If they are not to be included, then applications received in response to the notice are to be treated as unsolicited applications. FOAs may be issued by a DOE Contracting Officer or program office with prior concurrence of the contracting office.
( 2 ) DOE must post synopses of its FOAs and modifications to the announcements at the Grants.gov Internet site, using the standard data elements/format, except for: ( i ) Announcements of funding opportunities for awards less than $25,000 for which 100 percent of eligible applicants live outside of the United States.
( ii ) Single source announcements of funding opportunities which are specifically directed to a known recipient.
( b ) *Subawards.* In accordance with the provisions of the applicable statute and program rules, if a DOE financial assistance program involves the award of financial assistance by a recipient to a subrecipient, the recipient shall provide sufficient advance notice so that potential subrecipients may prepare timely applications and secure prerequisite reviews and approvals.
( c ) *Announcement format.* DOE must use the government-wide standard format to publish program announcements of funding opportunities.
[61 FR 7166, Feb. 26, 1996, as amended at 69 FR 7867, Feb. 20, 2004; 70 FR 69254, Nov. 15, 2005; 74 FR 44276, Aug. 28, 2009]
Order entered December 19, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00116-CR

JEREMIAH ROBINSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-33830-L 

ORDER

Appellant’s brief is overdue. The brief was due September 3, 2022. We 

notified appellant’s counsel on September 9, 2022, by postcard that the brief was 

overdue and directed counsel to file within ten days both appellant’s brief and an 

extension motion. We cautioned counsel that if the brief and an extension motion 

were not filed, we would order the trial court to conduct a hearing. On September 

12, 2022, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file the brief, and on 

September 15, 2022, we ordered appellant to file the brief by October 18, 2022. 
On October 31, 2022, appellant filed a second motion for extension of time to file 

the brief. On November 2, 2022, we ordered appellant to file the brief by 

November 30, 2022. We cautioned appellant that if he failed to file the brief by 

November 30, 2022, this Court might abate the appeal for a hearing in the trial 

court to determine why the brief has not been filed. As of the date of this order, 

neither the brief nor a further motion for extension has been filed. 

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make 

appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant 

desires to prosecute the appeals, whether appellant has abandoned the appeals, or 

whether appointed counsel has abandoned the appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial 

court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 

S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is 

indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary 

to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which 

shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY 

DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Carter 

Thompson, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 5, and to counsel for all 

parties.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above 

order. The appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or 

when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7377 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7377

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt survivor benefit 
   annuity plan payments from the individual alternative minimum tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 20, 2018

   Mr. Larsen of Washington introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt survivor benefit 
   annuity plan payments from the individual alternative minimum tax.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Children of Fallen Servicemembers 
AMT Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR SURVIVOR BENEFIT ANNUITY PLAN PAYMENTS FROM THE 
              INDIVIDUAL ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

    (a) In General.--Section 59(j)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new flush sentence:
        ``Solely for purposes of this subsection, any annuity paid 
        under the Survivor Benefit Plan under subchapter II of chapter 
        73 of title 10, United States Code, shall be considered earned 
        income of such child.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Linn *et al. v.*Bass, Adm'r, &c.

*Bill to enforce Tendons Lien.*

1. *Vendor’s lien where purchaser’s note is made payable to third person.*Oil a sale of lands, the purchaser’s note being made payable to a third person, to whom the vendor was indebted, and by whom it was to be held as collateral security, a vendor’s lien attaches to it in the hands of the payee,.although he does not surrender the note of his original debt- or, the vendor.

Appeal from Birmingham Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. Ti-ios. Cobbs.

The bill in this cause was filed by the administrator of • Hudson to enforce a lien on land, and averred that the vendor, Samuel Linn, was, at the time of the contract of sale, indebted to said Hudson, and as part of such contract, A. J. Linn, the vendee, executed his note for the purchase-money to said Hudson, which said note was held by said Hudson as collateral security for the indebtedness to him of Samuel Linn, which indebtedness was evidenced by two unpaid promissory notes signed by said Samuel Linn, and payable to said Hudson.

James Weatherly, for appellant.

Hewitt, Walker & Porter, *contra.*

STONE, 0. J.

There is no question that the bill in this *282case contains *equity.*— Buford *v. McCormick,*57 Ala. 428; *Young v. Hawkins,*74 Ala. 870; *Coleman v. Hatcher, 77*Ala. 217.

Tlie averments of the bill are satisfactorily proved, and the decree of the chancellor is affirmed.
H. Res. 36 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 10, 2017. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Jones, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Bishop of Utah, 

Mr. Turner, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Franks of Arizona, 

Mr. Shuster, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Wittman, Mr. 

Hunter, Mr. Coffman, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Austin Scott of 

Georgia, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Cook, Mr. Bridenstine, 

Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Ms. 

Stefanik, Ms. McSally, Mr. Knight, Mr. Russell, Mr. 

DesJarlais, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Banks of Indiana, and 

Ms. Cheney. 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Mr. Tom Price of Georgia, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Cole, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Rokita, 

Mr. Woodall, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Womack, Mr. Brat, Mr. 

Grothman, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Renacci, Mr. 
2 

•HRES 36 EH 

Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Lewis of Minnesota, Mr. Bergman, Mr. 

Faso, Mr. Smucker, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Arrington, and Mr. Ferguson. 

Attest: 

Clerk.