alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-35.11


(logo)  WELLS FARGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1086-120, 12th Floor
550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 282022
1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
as of March 1, 2013, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING
CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master
Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, U.S.
BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY
AMERICAS, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and PARK
BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC as Operating Advisor with respect to Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-CCRE6 (the "Agreement").
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive
Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from
   January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"), and of
   its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under
   my supervision, and

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
   respects throughout the Reporting Period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the
7th day of March 2014.

/s/ Daniel Bober
Daniel Bober
Executive Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Together we'll go far
229 So.2d 115

#### STATE of Louisiana, ex rel. Erlie BOYCE v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50277.

Dec. 19, 1969.

In re: Eriie Boyce applying for writ of habeas corpus.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J., concurs. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed. 2d 274, (June 1969) should have only prospective effect.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60711 Summary Calendar

ANDREA CRISTINA PINEDA-ACOSTA DE CEDILLO, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A28-601-439

- - - - - - - - - - May 23, 1997 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Andrea Cristina Pineda-Acosta De Cedillo (“Pineda”) asserts that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion in denying her petition to reopen deportation proceedings to apply for suspension of deportation. Pineda argues that the deportation would result in extreme hardship. 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1)(1997 Supp.).No. 96-60711 - 2 - We review the BIA’s findings of no extreme hardship under a strict standard for abuse of discretion. Hernandez-Cordero v. INS , 819 F.2d 558, 562-63 (5th Cir. 1987). Procedurally, our review is to determine that the BIA considered the factors individually and cumulatively. Id. at 563. Substantively, we may find an abuse of discretion only when the hardship is such that any reasonable person would necessarily conclude that the hardship is extreme. Id. After reviewing the record before us, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion, either procedurally or substantively, in determining that no extreme hardship existed with the deportation of Pineda. The petition for review is DENIED.
§ 1.75 Animal drugs and veterinary devices. ( a ) *Animal drugs.* In addition to the data required to be submitted in § 1.72, an ACE filer must submit the following information at the time of filing entry in ACE for animal drugs: ( 1 ) *Registration and listing.* For a drug intended for animal use, the Drug Registration Number and the Drug Listing Number if the foreign establishment where the drug was manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed before being imported or offered for import into the United States is required to register and list the drug under part 207 of this chapter. For the purposes of this section, the Drug Registration Number that must be submitted in ACE at the time of entry is the Unique Facility Identifier of the foreign establishment where the animal drug was manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed before being imported or offered for import into the United States. The Unique Facility Identifier is the identifier submitted by a registrant in accordance with the system specified under section 510(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. For the purposes of this section, the Drug Listing Number is the National Drug Code number of the animal drug article being imported or offered for import.
( 2 ) *New animal drug application number.* For a drug intended for animal use that is the subject of an approved application under section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the number of the new animal drug application or abbreviated new animal drug application. For a drug intended for animal use that is the subject of a conditionally approved application under section 571 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the application number for the conditionally approved new animal drug.
( 3 ) *Veterinary minor species index file number.* For a drug intended for use in animals that is the subject of an Index listing under section 572 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Minor Species Index File number of the new animal drug on the Index of Legally Marketed Unapproved New Animal Drugs for Minor Species.
( 4 ) *Investigational new animal drug file number.* For a drug intended for animal use that is the subject of an investigational new animal drug or generic investigational new animal drug file under part 511 of this chapter, the number of the investigational new animal drug or generic investigational new animal drug file.
( b ) *Veterinary devices.* An ACE filer must submit the data specified in § 1.72 at the time of filing entry in ACE for veterinary devices.
[87 FR 62984, Oct. 18, 2022]
#### § 2400.101 Applicable regulations.

Unless excepted under 24 CFR chapters I through IX, the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, set forth in 2 CFR part 200, shall apply to Federal Awards made by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to non-Federal entities.
- Home
- Data Products
- County-level Data Sets
- Poverty
NUMBER 13-18-00487-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE LONE STAR NATIONAL BANK

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides

Per Curiam Order

Relator Lone Star National Bank filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion 

for emergency temporary relief in the above cause on September 6, 2018. Through this 

original proceeding, relator seeks to compel the trial court to: (1) vacate an August 31, 

2018 order requiring International Bank of Commerce to deposit funds into the registry of 

the court and allowing Armando Gomez to withdraw the funds; and (2) issue an order 

dismissing the underlying lawsuit in accordance with the motions for nonsuit filed by 

relator and International Bank of Commerce. Through its motion for emergency 
2

temporary relief, relator seeks to stay the August 31, 2018 order pending resolution of 

this original proceeding. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion for emergency 

temporary relief, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. The motion for 

emergency temporary relief is GRANTED and the trial court’s order of August 31, 2018 

is ordered STAYED pending further order of this Court, or until the case is finally decided. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary 

relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). 

The Court requests that the real parties in interest, International Bank of 

Commerce and Armando Gomez, or any others whose interest would be directly affected 

by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the 

expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

6th day of September, 2018.
Editorial Note on Part 180
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 180.970 Nonprocurement transaction. ( a ) *Nonprocurement transaction* means any transaction, regardless of type (except procurement contracts), including, but not limited to the following: ( 1 ) Grants.
( 2 ) Cooperative agreements.
( 3 ) Scholarships.
( 4 ) Fellowships.
( 5 ) Contracts of assistance.
( 6 ) Loans.
( 7 ) Loan guarantees.
( 8 ) Subsidies.
( 9 ) Insurances.
( 10 ) Payments for specified uses.
( 11 ) Donation agreements.
( b ) A nonprocurement transaction at any tier does not require the transfer of Federal funds.
RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

2006-1247.

#### Harris v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 85286, 85574, and 85605, 166 Ohio App.3d 647, 2006-Ohio-2206. Reported at 116 Ohio St.3d 139, 2007-Ohio-5587, 876 N.E.2d 1201. On *motion for*reconsideration *and*motion for stay of issuance of mandate pending petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Motions denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
###### Editorial Note on Part 180

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 180.15 To whom does the guidance apply?

The guidance provides OMB guidance only to Federal agencies. Publication of the guidance in the CFR does not change its nature—it is guidance and not regulation. Federal agencies' implementation of the guidance governs the rights and responsibilities of other persons affected by the nonprocurement debarment and suspension system.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CASSINE COURT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,

Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR IN 

INTEREST TO BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS 

TRUSTEE AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LaSALLE BANK, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR WASHINGTON

MUTUAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES WMALT 

SERIES 2006-AR9,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-2085

[November 4, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Elizabeth A. Metzger, Judge; L.T. Case No. 43-2009-CA000110.

Jason Berger, Stuart, for appellant.

N. Mark New, II, and William L. Grimsley of McGlinchey Stafford, 

Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See De Sousa v. JP Morgan Chase, N.A., 170 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2015); Iannauzzo v. Stanson, 927 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2006).

CIKLIN, C.J., GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 705 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 705

   Recognizing and congratulating Apolo Anton Ohno for his historic 
 performances in short track speedskating at the 2006 and 2002 Olympic 
                             Winter Games.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2006

Mr. McDermott submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Recognizing and congratulating Apolo Anton Ohno for his historic 
 performances in short track speedskating at the 2006 and 2002 Olympic 
                             Winter Games.

Whereas short track speedskater Apolo Anton Ohno was born May 22, 1982, in 
        Seattle, Washington;
Whereas Apolo Anton Ohno's father, Yuki Ohno, a single, Japanese-American 
        parent, never wavered in his support, sacrifice, and inspiration to help 
        his son Apolo realize his dream of competing in the Olympic Games;
Whereas Apolo Anton Ohno, at the age of just 23, now has five career Olympic 
        medals in short track speedskating, tying the record for the most medals 
        by an American male at the Olympic Winter Games;
Whereas Apolo Anton Ohno's gold medal in the 500 meters, bronze medal in the 
        1,000 meters, and bronze medal in the 5,000 meters relay gave him three 
        medals at the 2006 Olympic Winter Games in Turin, Italy, making him just 
        the fourth Unites States athlete to win that many medals at a single 
        Olympic Winter Games;
Whereas the United States Olympic Team needed every one of Apolo Anton Ohno's 
        medals to edge out the Canadian Olympic Team and claim second place in 
        the medal standings at the 2006 Olympic Winter Games; and
Whereas Apolo Anton Ohno, just 19 years old at the time, also captured the gold 
        medal in the 1,500 meters and the silver medal in the 1,000 meters at 
        the 2002 Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes and 
congratulates Apolo Anton Ohno for his historic performances in short 
track speedskating at the 2006 and 2002 Olympic Winter Games.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 590.404 Final opinions and orders.

The Assistant Secretary shall issue a final opinion and order and attach such conditions thereto as may be required by the public interest after completion and review of the record. The final opinion and order shall be based solely on the official record of the proceeding and include a statement of findings and conclusions, as well as the reasons or basis for them, and the appropriate order, condition, sanction, relief or denial.
§ 950.22 Covered event determination. ( a ) *Completeness review.* Upon notification of a covered event from the sponsor, the Claims Administrator shall review the notification for completeness within thirty (30) days of receipt. If the notification is not complete, the Claims Administrator shall return the notification within thirty (30) days of receipt and specify the incomplete information for submission by the sponsor to the Claims Administrator in time for a determination by the Claims Administrator in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Covered Event Determination.* The Claims Administrator shall review the notification and supporting information to determine whether there is agreement by the Claims Administrator with the sponsor's representation of the event as a covered event (Covered Event Determination) based on a review of the contract conditions for covered events and exclusions. ( 1 ) If the Claims Administrator believes the event is an exclusion as set forth in § 950.14(b), the Claims Administrator shall request within 30 days of receipt of the notification of a covered event information in the sponsor's possession that is relevant to the exclusion. The sponsor shall provide the requested information to the Administrator within 20 days of receipt of the Administrator's request.
( 2 ) The sponsor's failure to provide the requested information in a complete or timely manner constitutes a basis for the Claims Administrator to disagree with the sponsor's covered event notification as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, and to deny a claim for covered costs related to the exclusion as provided in § 950.24 of this part.
( c ) *Timing.* The Claims Administrator shall notify the sponsor within sixty (60) days of receipt of the notification whether the Administrator agrees with the sponsor's representation, disagrees with the representation, requires further information, or is an exclusion. If the sponsor disagrees with the Covered Event Determination, the parties shall resolve the dispute in accordance with the procedures set forth in subpart D of this part.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 0 2

- 12

- 00439

- CV

CARDIOVASCULAR SPECIALTY APPELLANT

ASSOCIATES OF NORTH TEXAS, P.A.

V.

MARK D. HEATH AND SUSAN P. HEATH APPELLEE S

----------

FROM THE 96 TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant ’s “ Agreed Motion To Dismiss

. ” It is the

court ’ s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: April 4, 2013

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-2 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2014 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 13, 2013, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-2 and U.S. Bank National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC./s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 23, 2015/s/ Jennifer M. PoppName:

Jennifer M. PoppTitle:

Chief Accounting OfficerDate:

March 23, 2015
#### In the Matter of S. Chas. Gherardi & Sons, Inc., Respondent, v. Milton Glass et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, Respondents, and Broadway Flushing Homeowners Association, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review a determination of the respondent Board of Standards *961and Appeals, made on May 23, 1967, affirming the revocation of a building permit, the intervenor herein appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 19, 1968, which annulled said determination and ordered the permit reinstated. Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs to appellant against petitioner, determination confirmed and petition dismissed on the merits. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, petitioner was not entitled to a building permit for a substandard lot, as a matter of right, under section 23-33 (subd. [b]) and section 23-48 (subd. [b]) of the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, as that lot was not “ owned separately and individually from all other adjoining tracts of land, both on the effective date of this resolution and on the date of application for a building permit.” The building permit originally issued was therefore invalid and was properly revoked; and petitioner acquired no vested rights thereunder (cf. *Matter of B & G Constr. Corp.*v. *Board of Appeals of Vil. of Amityville,*309 N. Y. 730; *Marcus*v. *Village of Mamaroneck,*283 N. Y. 325, 330). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
[No. 9921.

Department One.

October 28, 1911.]

#### The State of Washington, *on the Relation of Eric Skamser, Plaintiff,*v. The Superior Court for Pierce County *et al., Respondents.**1*

Prohibition — When Lies — Remedy by Appeal. Prohibition does not lie to prevent further proceedings in a cause, after denial of a petition to vacate a default; since there is an adequate remedy by appeal, and appellant’s failure to avail himself of the remedy by appeal and supersedeas does not affect the adequacy thereof.

Application filed in the supreme court October 2, 1911, for a writ of prohibition directed to the superior court for Pierce county, Clifford, J., prohibiting further proceedings in a cause.

Denied.

*W. B. Osbourn,*for relator.

*Garvey, Kelly*& *MacMahon,*for respondent Forsyth.

1

 Reported in 118 Pac. 344.

*458Per Curiam.

— -This is an application by the relator for a writ of prohibition, asking that Judge Clifford of the superior court of Pierce county be prohibited from proceeding in the case of McGarvey v. Eric Skamser, for the reason, as is alleged, that the court is acting without jurisdiction. The plaintiff in that action had taken a default judgment against the defendant. This action is based upon the refusal of the court to grant the defendant’s (relator’s) petition to set aside the judgment, and to prohibit him from taking any subsequent action in the case.

It is not necessary to enter into a discussion of the merits of this case or of the alleged errors of the court; for if there is any doctrine that is settled by the decisions of this court since the decision in the case of *State ex rel. Townsend Gas & Elec. Light Co. v. Superior Court,*20 Wash. 502, 55 Pac. 933, it is that the writ of prohibition and similar writs will not issue when there is an adequate remedy by appeal. It is not contended by the relator that the denial of the motion to vacate a judgment is not an appealable order. In fact, the accompanying record in this case shows that the relator has appealed from the action of the court in denying the motion to vacate. But it is claimed that the appeal is not adequate because no stay bond was given on such appeal. If a stay bond was given, it would be a sufficient protection against any subsequent action of the court, and the question of the court’s jurisdiction would be determined on the appeal. If the stay bond was not given, it will not avail the relator, for he cannot demand the right to this extraordinary writ by reason of the fact that he did not avail himself of the remedy by appeal, which was open to him under the law. The court had already acted on the other matters complained of before the writ of prohibition was asked for.

The writ will therefore be denied.
§ 733.8 Contracting officer procedures. Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct by referral under § 733.7, the contracting officer should, by notification of the contractor or financial assistance recipient: ( a ) Require the contractor or the financial assistance recipient to act on the allegation consistent with the Research Misconduct requirements in the contract or financial assistance award to which the allegation pertains; or
( b ) In the event the contractor or the financial assistance recipient is unable to act: ( 1 ) Designate an appropriate DOE program to conduct an investigation to develop a complete factual record and an examination of such record leading to either a finding of research misconduct and an identification of appropriate remedies or a determination that no further action is warranted; and
( 2 ) Make the appropriate findings consistent with the Research Misconduct requirements contained in the contract or financial assistance award, in order to act in lieu of the contractor or financial assistance recipient.