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

 

I, Daniel Vinson, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reportson Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the UBS-Barclays Commercial MortgageTrust 2013-C6 (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 thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicingand other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the ExchangeAct periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicershave fulfilled their 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 on assessment of compliance with servicing criteriafor asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange ActRules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

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

 

Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association,as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, U.S. Bank NationalAssociation, as Certificate Administrator, U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as OperatingAdvisor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer for the Santa Anita Mall Mortgage Loan,Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer for the Santa Anita Mall Mortgage Loan, DeutscheBank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for the Santa Anita Mall Mortgage Loan, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Custodian for theSanta Anita Mall Mortgage Loan, and Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor for the Santa Anita Mall Mortgage Loan.

 

Dated: March 21, 2022

 

/s/ Daniel Vinson

 

Chief Executive Officer

(senior officer in charge of securitizationof the depositor)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5375-N-51]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                    *Veterans Administration,*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: December 23, 2010.

Mark R. Johnston,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs. 

[FR Doc. 2010-32792 Filed 12-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 576 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 576

  Celebrating Advancement Via Individual Determination's 25 years of 
                                success.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2005

    Mrs. Davis of California (for herself, Mr. Filner, Mr. Davis of 
 Illinois, Mr. Honda, Mr. Farr, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Castle, Mr. Manzullo, 
  Mr. Waxman, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Berman, and Mr. 
 Ruppersberger) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
            to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Celebrating Advancement Via Individual Determination's 25 years of 
                                success.

Whereas Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) has provided academic 
        and motivational support that has enabled more than 95 percent of the 
        over 257,000 underperforming students who have been in its program to go 
        on to college;
Whereas Advancement Via Individual Determination has grown over 25 years to more 
        than 2,200 middle and high schools in 36 States and Department of 
        Defense schools in 15 countries;
Whereas Advancement Via Individual Determination started in 1980 with one 
        teacher, Mary Catherine Swanson, and 32 high school students in San 
        Diego, California, and developed into an easily replicated program that 
        promotes academic success;
Whereas students are selected because they are low-income, first-generation, 
        college-going students who are underperforming academically;
Whereas college students support the program with individual academic coaching;
Whereas students are required to take a rigorous, college preparatory curriculum 
        including advanced level courses;
Whereas the program provides SAT/ACT preparation, college information and 
        financial aid assistance, college visits, and motivational experiences;
Whereas at the end of the first college year, 89 percent of Advancement Via 
        Individual Determination students are fully eligible and do enroll for 
        their sophomore year compared to a national average of 50 percent; and
Whereas over 98,000 teachers and administrators have attended training in the 
        high-quality teaching skills that support Advancement Via Individual 
        Determination students: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates Advancement Via Individual Determination 
        students and their teachers on increasing college eligibility 
        and attendance; and
            (2) celebrates Advancement Via Individual Determination's 
        25 years of success.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 31992D0345 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31992D0345

**92/345/EEC: Commission Decision of 9 June 1992 approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by Spain (Only the Spanish text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 188 , 08/07/1992 P. 0042 - 0042 *

COMMISSION DECISION

of 9 June 1992

approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by Spain

(Only the Spanish text is authentic)

(92/345/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/539/EEC of 15 October 1990 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (1), as last amended by Directive 91/496/EEC (2), and in particular Article 3 (2) thereof,

Whereas by letter dated 3 April 1992 Spain transmitted a plan to the Commission;

Whereas the plan has been examined and found to meet the requirements of Directive 90/539/EEC, and in particular Annex II thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The plan submitted by Spain for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs is hereby approved.

Article 2

Spain shall bring into force by 1 July 1992 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to Spain.

Done at Brussels, 9 June 1992. For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission
#### In re Zvi Hershel SMITH, Member of the Bar.

No. 98-8004.

United States Court of Veterans Appeals.

Aug. 17, 1998.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On June 17, 1998, this Court received a certified copy of a May 15, 1998, order of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island disbarring attorney Zvi Hershel Smith (respondent) from the practice of law in that state. That disbarment action was based on the respondent’s conviction on two counts of embezzlement over five hundred dollars.

Under Rule 4 of this Court’s Rules of Admission and Practice, another court’s final adjudication that an attorney has been guilty of misconduct is conclusive proof of such misconduct for purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in this Court, unless the respondent demonstrates an infirmity in such adjudication under the criteria of paragraph (c) of that Rule. On June 29, 1998, the Court ordered the respondent to show cause, within 30 days thereafter, why he should not be similarly disbarred from practice before this Court. Because the respondent had not kept the Court informed of his address, the order was sent to the address provided by Rhode Island bar disciplinary authorities. The order was returned unclaimed. On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that Zvi Hershel Smith is disbarred from practice before this Court.
No. 68568 

# FILED FEB 1 0 2016
TRACE K. ONDEMAN CLERK OF UPREME COURT BY S •

DEPUTY CLERK

(0) 1947A ea) 

### cromin 5 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JON GILBAUGH, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN E. DELANEY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.



### ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges an order of the district court denying a motion to dismiss an indictment. Petitioner Jon Gilbaugh contends that the district court erred in concluding that the State could seek an indictment after voluntarily dismissing charges pursuant to NRS 174.085(5). We conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in concluding that the State could seek an indictment after dismissing a complaint. 

### See NRS 174.085(5) (permitting State to dismiss and refile a complaint prior to the preliminary hearing); 

### Sheriff, Washoe Cty. v. Dhadda, 115 Nev. 175, 183, 980 P.2d 1062, 1067 (1999) ("M here is no jurisdictional defect in dual proceedings against an accused consisting

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADACherry

of a grand jury indictment for the same offense which has been previously charged in a pending complaint or information." (citing Turpin v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 236, 238, 484 P.2d 1083, 1084-85 (1971)). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

, C.J. Parraguirre

J.

J.

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney GenerallCarson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 

### e
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 98-50046

Summary Calendar

________________________

MARTHA ALEYDA STANFORD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

(A-96-CV-862)

_________________________________________________________________

September 14, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Martha Aleyda Stanford appeals from an adverse

summary judgment dismissing her discrimination and retaliation

claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 2000, et seq., (“Title VII”), as well as her state law

claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

After a careful de novo review of the record, the summary

judgment evidence presented to the district court, and the briefs

on appeal, we find no merit in appellant’s arguments advanced in

opposition to the dismissal of her Title VII claim or her state
2

law claim. We affirm for the reasons set forth in the very

detailed and well reasoned Order by the magistrate judge granting

the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dated December 18,

1997.

AFFIRMED.
Summary of May 10, 2006 oral agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Summary of May 10, 2006 oral agreement with Joseph F. Pinkerton, III, its Chairman of the 
 Board and its former President and Chief Executive Officer 
 On May 10, 2006, Active Power entered into an oral agreement with Joseph
F. Pinkerton, IIII in connection with his departure as Chief Executive Officer of the company and his continuation as its Chairman of the Board. Pursuant to the terms of such agreement, Mr. Pinkerton will receive an annual base salary of
$90,000 and his annual bonus target under Active Power’s Executive Compensation Plan will be 100% of his annual base salary. Mr. Pinkerton will continue to participate in Active Power’s employee benefit programs.
§ 710.6 Cooperation by the individual. ( a ) ( 1 ) It is the responsibility of the individual to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to DOE's relevant and material questions, and when requested, to furnish or authorize others to furnish information that the DOE deems pertinent to the individual's eligibility for access authorization. This obligation to cooperate applies when completing security forms, during the course of a personnel security background investigation, reinvestigation or continuous vetting, and at any stage of DOE's processing of the individual's access authorization request, including but not limited to, personnel security consultations, DOE-sponsored mental health evaluations, and other authorized DOE actions under this part. The individual may elect not to cooperate; however, such refusal may prevent DOE from reaching an affirmative finding required for granting or continuing the access authorization. In this event, for incumbents any access authorization then in effect may be administratively withdrawn or, for applicants, further processing may be administratively terminated.
( 2 ) It is the responsibility of an individual subject to 10 CFR 709.3(d) to consent to and take a polygraph examination required by part 709. A refusal to consent to or take such an examination may prevent DOE from reaching an affirmative finding required for continuing access authorization. In this event, any access authorization then in effect may be administratively withdrawn.
( b ) If the individual believes that the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section have been inappropriately applied, the individual may file a written appeal of the action with the Director within 30 calendar days of the date the individual was notified of the action.
( c ) Upon receipt of the written appeal, the Director shall conduct an inquiry as to the circumstances involved in the action and shall, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the written appeal, notify the individual, in writing, of their decision. If the Director determines that the action was inappropriate, the Director shall notify the Manager that access authorization must be reinstated or, for applicants, that the individual must continue to be processed for access authorization. If the Director determines the action was appropriate, the Director shall notify the individual of this fact in writing. The Director's decision is final and not subject to further review or appeal.
[81 FR 71335, Oct. 17, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 59596, July 23, 2024]
From: Stephen H Lachter

To: Finamore, Robert (OST)

Cc: Galli Pierandrea (Cargolux Italia)

Subject: Application of Cargolux Italia (Docket OST-2012-0116)

Date: Monday, August 06, 2012 12:24:09 PM

August 6, 2012

Re: Application of Cargolux Italia S.p.A. for a Foreign Air Carrier Permit and an

Exemption

Request of Cargolux Italia for technical amendment 

Dear Mr. Finemore:

We have been advised that the Application of Cargolux Italia in this docket

inadvertently seeks authority that goes beyond the scope of the US-EU Air

Transportation Agreement in so far as the Application seeks prospective authority

(additional route rights) made available to the European Community or Common

Aviation Area carriers in the future. Since the express terms of the US-EU

Agreement limit prospective authority to carriers of the European Community,

Cargolux Italia respectfully requests the technical amendment of its Application to

eliminate any reference to the "Common Aviation Area." As amended, the authority

request should read:

Transportation authorized by any additional route or other rights made available to

European Community (EU) carriers in the future."

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen H. Lachter

Counsel for Cargolux Italia S.p.A.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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.

June 2, 2021

a0526 

# Order

Clerk June 2, 2021

162337

PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ST CLAIR SHORES,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 162337

COA: 349910

Macomb CC: 2019

- 000135

- AR

MICHAEL DORR,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 29, 2020

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, be cause we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

B ERNSTEIN

, J., would grant leave to appeal

.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20833

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELISEO SAUCEDO-VASQUEZ, 

also known as Cuauthtemoc Saucedo-Vasquez, 

also known as Vincent Bello,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CR-576-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eliseo Saucedo-Vasquez (Saucedo) appeals his sentence

following his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting the

transportation of illegal aliens within the United States for

commercial advantage and private financial gain, and causing

an alien’s death, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) and

18 U.S.C. § 2. He argues that the district court erred in

increasing his offense level by eight levels pursuant to U.S.S.G.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-20833

-2-

§ 2L1.1(b)(6)(4) because the district court failed to make a

finding that he acted recklessly in creating a threat of serious

bodily injury or death. 

Section 2L1.1(b)(6) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides,

“If any person died or sustained bodily injury, increase the

offense level according to the seriousness of the injury.” 

Section 2L1.1(b)(5) provides for a sentence enhancement “[i]f the

offense involved intentionally or recklessly creating a

substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another

person.” That U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6) does not specify reckless

conduct as a requirement for the enhancement, while U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.1(b)(5) specifies it, is a clear indication that reckless

conduct is not necessary for an increase under U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.1(b)(6). See United States v. Garcia-Guerrero, 313 F.3d

892, 895 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Because Saucedo has failed to demonstrate any error, plain

or otherwise, in the district court’s application of the U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.1(b)(6)(4) enhancement, the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.
#### § 781.66 [Reserved]
#### Jay Nussbaum et al., Appellants, v Joseph D’Amico, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 523]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered January 5, 2006, which denied plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CELR 3126 to, inter alia, strike defendant’s answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although defendant’s deposition was delayed, the delay was relatively brief and was not shown to have been prejudicial or to have been attributable to willful or contumacious flouting of the court’s discovery directives. Under the circumstances, the court’s denial of the extreme sanction sought by plaintiffs, some three months subsequent to the completion of defendant’s deposition, constituted a proper exercise of discretion *(cf. Williamson v City of New York,*249 AD2d 248 [1998]; *Pimental v City of New York,*246 AD2d 467 [1998]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find

*450them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.