alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From:             Graham Martin
Sent:             Monday, February 03, 2003, 9:13 A.M.
To:               Frederic Auberty
cc:               Robertson, Andy; Geraldine Eden

Subject:          Re:  Karak/Trans-Dominion

Dear Frederic,

I confirm our agreement to the payments as scheduled in your e-mail below. As
regards interest, my understanding is that each payment after the first
(assuming it is made today) will also include an amount of interest at a rate of
7% per annum on the outstanding balance for the period from 3rd February (or
previous payment date) to the date of payment.


Regards,
Graham Martin


<PAGE>


From:             Frederic Auberty
Sent:             30 January 2003, 17:34
To:               Graham Martin
Subject:          Karak/Trans-Dominion


Dear Mr. Martin:

In reference to our phone conversation of today, I am glad that we have been
able to reach an agreement regarding the repayment of US$ 350,000 due on or
before February 3rd 2003 which is as follows:

         Toreador will transfer US$ 35,000 on February 3, 2003.

         Toreador will make US$ 25,000 monthly payment until May 2003.

         Toreador will pay the balance by the end of May 2003.

         If not able to pay the balance by the end of May 2003: the monthly
payment will be increase to US$ 50,000.

         7% interest rate per year is included in each payment.

Please confirm the above, and provide me with wiring instructions. Thank you
again for your understanding and cooperation.

Best regards,

Frederic Auberty
V.P. International
Phone    +1 214 559-3933
Fax      +1 214 559-3945
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6693 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM NATHANIEL GRANT, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 97-6737 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM NATHANIEL GRANT, Defendant - Appellant.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-36-C)2 Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Nathaniel Grant, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the di strict court's orders denying his motions to re duce his sentence and for production of grand jury transcripts. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Grant , No. CR-92- 36-C (W.D. Va. May 2 & 7, 1997). Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 35.2**

 

**Servicer Compliance Statement of Deere Credit Services, Inc.**

 

I, Cory J. Reed, President of Deere Credit Services, Inc., state:

 

A review of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s activities for the period from October 31, 2016 through October 29, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) and of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 9, 2015 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables, Inc. and John Deere Owner Trust 2015-B has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, Deere Credit Services, Inc. has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 
| Date: January 12,   2018 | Deere Credit   Services, Inc. |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                          |                               |
|                          |                               |
|                          |                               |   |
|                          | By                                 |   | /s/ Cory J. Reed |   |
|                          |                               |   | Cory J. Reed |
|                          |                               |   | President |
|                               |                                    |  |  |  |  |

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1153

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Thirplus Moose

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: August 28, 2013

Filed: September 11, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Thirplus Moose appeals the sentence that the district court imposed upon his

1

guilty plea to conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery and attempted armed bank

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.
robbery, to use and carry a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and

to engage in carjacking (Count 1); to armed bank robbery and forcible restraint

(Count 2); and to use or discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence causing

murder (Count 5). Seeking leave to withdraw, Moose’s counsel has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the length of the

sentence because it was imposed at the top of the sentencing range agreed upon by

the parties in their Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. 

Moose has not filed a pro se brief, despite being granted two extensions of time to do

so. He now moves for additional time to “amend” his appeal. We deny the motion. 

Moose was told that this court would grant no further extensions of time to file a

brief, and further, he does not specify what issues he would raise.

As to the appeal itself, we note that the plea agreement in this case contains a

waiver of Moose’s right to appeal his conviction and sentence. We will enforce the

appeal waiver, because (1) the argument raised on appeal falls within the scope of the

sentence-appeal waiver, which applies unless the sentence is challenged based on

ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or illegality; (2) the

record reflects that Moose entered into both the waiver and the plea agreement

knowingly and voluntarily; and (3) no miscarriage of justice would result from

enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.

2003) (en banc). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), and find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of

the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, deny Moose’s motion,

and dismiss the appeal.

______________________________

-2-
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 2, 2017 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-00058-CV IN THE INTEREST OF E.A., A CHILD On Appeal from the 470th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 470-04225-2016



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Appellant appeals from the trial court’s Oc tober 17, 2016 order granting a bill of review and vacating a divorce decree. After reviewing th e clerk’s record, we qu estioned our jurisdiction over this appeal because there did not appear to be an appealable order. We instructed appellant to file, by March 3, 2017, a letter brief addressing our concern and cautioned her that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. As of today’s date, appellant has not responded. Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgements and certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. See id. An order on a petition for bill of review that se ts aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of all the issues of the case on the merits is inte rlocutory in nature and not a final appealable–2– judgment. See Kiefer v. Touris , 197 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2006); Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam). In the order, the trial court granted the bill of review and vacated the final decree of divorce without disposing of all the issues of the case on the me rits. For this reason, the order is interlocutory and not appealable. See Kiefer , 197 S.W.3d at 302; Tesoro Petroleum , 796 S.W.2d at 705. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

170058F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF E.A., A CHILD
No. 05-17-00058-CV On Appeal from the 470th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 470-04225-2016. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee Samuel Anyimadu recove r his costs of this appeal from appellant Jacqueline Jones.
Judgment entered May 2, 2017.
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5160 *Beta*-globulin immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A *beta*-globulin immunological test system is a device that consists of reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques beta globulins (serum protein) in serum and other body fluids. *Beta*-globulin proteins include *beta*-lipoprotein, transferrin, glycoproteins, and complement, and are rarely associated with specific pathologic disorders.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 65 FR 2312, Jan. 14, 2000]
§ 1.411(a)-2 Effective dates. ( a ) *Plan not in existence on January 1, 1974.* Under section 1017(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in the case of a plan which was not in existence on January 1, 1974, section 411 and the regulations thereunder apply for plan years beginning after September 2, 1974. See paragraph (c) of this section for time plan is considered in existence.
( b ) *Plans in existence on January 1, 1974.* Under section 1017(b) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in the case of a plan which was in existence on January 1, 1974, section 411 and the regulations thereunder apply for plan years beginning after December 31, 1975. See paragraph (c) of this section for time plan is considered to be in existence.
( c ) *Time of plan existence* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* For purposes of this section, a plan is considered to be in existence on a particular day if— ( i ) The plan on or before that day was reduced to writing and adopted by the employer (including, in the case of a corporate employer, formal approval by the employer's board of directors and, if required, shareholders), even though no amounts had been contributed under the plan as of such day, and
( ii ) The plan was not terminated on or before that day. For example, if a plan was adopted on January 2, 1974, effective as of January 1, 1974, the plan is not considered to have been in existence on January 1, 1974, because it was not both adopted and in writing on January 1, 1974.
( 2 ) *Collectively-bargained plan.* Notwithstanding paragraph (c) (1) of this section, a plan described in section 413 (a), relating to a plan maintained pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement, is considered to be in existence on a particular day if— ( i ) On or before that day there is a legally enforceable agreement to establish such a plan signed by the employer, and
( ii ) The employer contributions to be made to the plan are set forth in the agreement.
( 3 ) *Special rule.* If a plan is considered to be in existence under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, any other plan with which such existing plan is merged or consolidated shall also be considered to be in existence on such date.
( d ) *Existing plans under collective-bargaining agreements.* For a special effective date rule for certain plans maintained pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, see section 1017(c)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 932).
( e ) *Certain existing plans may elect new provisions.* The plan administrator may elect to have the provisions of the Code relating to participation, vesting, funding, and form of benefit apply to a selected plan year. See § 1.410(a)-2(d) for rules relating to such an election.
( f ) *Application of rules.* The requirements of section 411 do not apply to employees who separate from service with the employer prior to the first plan year to which such requirements apply and who never return to service with the employer in a plan year to which section 411 applies.
(Sec. 411 (88 Stat. 901; 26 U.S.C. 411))
[T.D. 7501, 42 FR 42325, Aug. 23, 1977]
|us bank(logo) | All of us serving you
|------------- | ---------------------





Annual
Statement of Compliance

Morgan
Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C25



VIA:
EMAIL



Banc
of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc.

One
Bryant Park

New
York, New York 10036

Attention:
Leland F. Bunch, III

leland.f.bunch@baml.com



Eightfold
Real Estate Capital, L.P.

1111
Lincoln Road, Suite 802

Miami
Beach, Florida 33139

Attention:
Brian Tageson

btageson@eightfoldcapital.com



17g5informationprovider@usbank.com



| | Re: | Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2015 (the
      “Agreement”) between Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial
      Mortgage Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as
      Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National
      Association, as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust
      Advisor and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Certificate
      Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent and
    Custodian.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I,
Kimberly O. Jacobs, a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association,
as Certificate Administrator, as a certifying servicer hereby certify that:



(1)
A review of the activities of the Certificate Administrator during the preceding
calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of the performance of the
Certificate Administrator under the Agreement has been made under my
supervision; and



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



Capitalized
terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the
Agreement.



Date:
March 1, 2018



U.S.
Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator





|By: | /s/
      Kimberly O. Jacobs | 
|--- | ---------------------------- | 
|    | Kimberly O. Jacobs           | 
|    | Senior Vice President        |
EXHIBIT 32.a



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.



|                 |     |                            
|---------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|Date:            |     |                            
|January 23, 2007 | By: | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                 |     |                            
|                 |     | John P. Manning            
|                 |     | Principal Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 1.43-7 Effective date of regulations.

The provisions of §§ 1.43-1, 1.43-2 and 1.43-4 through 1.43-7 are effective with respect to costs paid or incurred after December 31, 1991, in connection with a qualified enhanced oil recovery project. The provisions of § 1.43-3 are effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1990. For costs paid or incurred after December 31, 1990, and before January 1, 1992, in connection with a qualified enhanced oil recovery project, taxpayers must take reasonable return positions taking into consideration the statute and its legislative history.

[T.D. 8448, 57 FR 54931, Nov. 23, 1992]
§ 74.1206 D&C Green No. 6. ( a ) *Identity.* The color additive D&C Green No. 6 is 1,4-bis[(4-methylphenyl)amino]-9,10-anthracenedione (CAS. Reg. No. 128-80-3).
( b ) *Specifications.* The color additive D&C Green No. 6 for use in coloring externally applied drugs shall conform to the following specifications and shall be free from impurities other than those named to the extent that such other impurities may be avoided by current good manufacturing practice: Volatile matter (at 135 °C), not more than 2.0 percent. Water-soluble matter, not more than 0.3 percent. Matter insoluble in carbon tetrachloride, not more than 1.5 percent. *p*-Toluidine, not more than 0.1 percent. 1,4-Dihydroxyanthraquinone, not more than 0.2 percent. 1-Hydroxy-4-[(4-methylphenyl)amino]-9, 10-anthracenedione, not more than 5.0 percent. Lead (as Pb), not more than 20 parts per million. Arsenic (as As), not more than 3 parts per million. Mercury (as Hg), not more than 1 part per million. Total color, not less than 96.0 percent.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* The color additive D&C Green No. 6 may be safely used for coloring externally applied drugs in amounts consistent with current good manufacturing practice.
( d ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Certification.* All batches of D&C Green No. 6 shall be certified in accordance with regulations promulgated under part 80 of this chapter.
[42 FR 15654, Mar. 22, 1977, as amended at 47 FR 14146, Apr. 2, 1982; 47 FR 24278, June 4, 1982; 51 FR 9784, Mar. 21, 1986]
usbank(logo)



Global Corporate
Trust

190 S. LaSalle
Street, 7th Floor

MK-IL-SL7C

Chicago, IL 60603



usbank.com



Annual Statement of Compliance

Bank of America Merrill Lynch Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2015-UBS7



VIA: EMAIL



Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc.

One Bryant Park

New York, New York 10036

Attention: Leland F. Bunch, III

leland.f.bunch@baml.com



Ellington Management Group, LLC

53 Forest Avenue

Old Greenwich, Connecticut 06870

Attention: Leo Huang

lhuang@ellington.com



17g5informationprovider@usbank.com



| | Re: | Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2015 (the “Agreement”) between Banc of America
Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc., as Depositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master
Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, U.S. Bank National Association,
as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I, Kimberly O. Jacobs,
a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator, as a certifying servicer hereby certify
that:



(1) A review of the activities
of the Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of the performance
of the Certificate Administrator under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and



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



Capitalized terms used
but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.



Date: March 1, 2019



U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator



|By: | /s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs | 
|--- | ---------------------- | 
|    | Kimberly O. Jacobs     | 
|    | Senior Vice President  |