alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(logo)CohnReznick

Advisory ∙ Assurance ∙ Tax

 

CohnReznickLLP

cohnreznick.com

 

 

Report ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

ToTorchlight Loan Services, LLC

 

Wehave examined management of Torchlight Loan Services, LLC("Torchlight")'s assertion that Torchlight complied with theservicing criteria applicable to it under paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of theSecurities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")'s Regulation AB for thecommercial mortgage-backed securities transactions that were issued on or afterDecember 1, 2002 and that were registered with the SEC pursuant to theSecurities Act of 1933 for which Torchlight acted as the special servicerlisted in Appendix B ("Platform") included in the accompanyingManagement's Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable ServicingCriteria on SEC Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019.Torchlight's management is responsible for its assertion. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion about Torchlight's compliancewith the specified requirements based on our examination.

 

Managementhas determined that the criteria set forth in Sections 1122 (d)(1)(iii),(d)(3)(i)(C), (d)(3)(i)(D), (d)(3)(ii), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(iv),(d)(4)(v), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii),(d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv) are not applicable to the activities performed byTorchlight as a special servicer with respect to Torchlight's Platform.

 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards establishedby the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Thosestandards require that we plan and perform the examination to obtain reasonableassurance about whether management's assertion about compliance with thespecified requirements is fairly stated, in all material respects. Anexamination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence about whethermanagement's assertion is fairly stated, in all material respects. The nature,timing, and extent of the procedures selected depend on our judgment, includingan assessment of the risks of material misstatement of management's assertion,whether due to fraud or error. We believe that the evidence we obtained issufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

Ourexamination does not provide a legal determination on Torchlight's compliancewith the specified requirements.

 

Inour opinion, management's assertion that Torchlight complied with the servicingcriteria applicable to it under paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of the SEC'sRegulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions thatwere issued on or after December 1, 2002 and that were registered with the SECpursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 for which Torchlight acted as thespecial servicer included in the accompanying Management's CertificationRegarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria on SEC Regulation AB isfairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/CohnReznick LLP

 

Bethesda,Maryland 

February19, 2020
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7280

JOHN HENRY SINGLETON, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus SHERWOOD R. MCCABE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-191-5-BO) Submitted: October 18, 2004 Decided: October 27, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Henry Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. SeeFed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 - PER CURIAM: John Henry Singleton seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 30, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on July 9, 2004. * Because Singleton failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00484-CV

Chadwick J. Zellers, Appellant

v.

Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 99-04463, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Chadwick J. Zellers has filed an agreed motion to dismiss. We grant the motion 

and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2).

___________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed on Appellant=s Motion

Filed: February 27, 2003
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors andshareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessmentof Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the"Company"), a subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with theservicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loanoutsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial taxservice provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2016 and forthe year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii),1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii)and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to theservicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Managementis responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conducted inaccordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether theCompany performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicableservicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicingactivities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errorsthat may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may haveaffected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company duringthe period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legaldetermination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which theCompany served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas TX 75201-2997*

*T: 214-746-6500, F:214-712-6660,*www.pwc.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      12,355,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              256,812,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                10,013,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           281,334,000
<PP&E>                                      50,874,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              38,108,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             370,653,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      182,590,000
<BONDS>                                    141,767,000<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       224,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,278,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               370,653,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           507,543,000<F2>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              367,418,000    
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               871,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,157,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,846,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,134,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             50,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    50,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>Excludes current portion of bonds, mortgage, and similar debt.
<F2>Represents gross revenue which includes costs of certain services 
subcontracted to third parties and other reimbursable direct project costs, such
as materials procured by the Company on behalf of its customers.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
39656.

#### BRYANT v. THE STATE.

Frankum, Judge.

The defendant was convicted in the City Court of Floyd County, Georgia, on each count of a four-count accusation. Two counts of the accusation charged him with possessing nontax-paid liquors, and the other two counts charged him with selling nontaxpaid liquors. The defendant’s motion for new trial, as amended, was overruled and this ruling is assigned as error. *Held:*

1. The general grounds of the motion have been specifically abandoned and will not be considered by this court.

*643Decided September 25, 1962.

*Scoggin A Minge, Jerry L. Minge,*for plaintiff in error.

*Chastine Parker, Solicitor,*contra.

2. The issues raised by the special grounds of the motion for new trial are resolved by the determination of whether or not two bottles of whisky, which were identified as having been purchased from the defendant by a State revenue agent and which were admitted in evidence over the defendant’s objection, were obtained by an unlawful search and seizure so as to violate constitutional rights of the defendant. The defendant argues strenuously that this case falls under the rule announced in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (81 SC 1684, 6 LE2d 1081), (see Elkins v. U.S., 364 U.S. 206, 80 SC 1437, 4 LE2d 1669; U.S. v. Page, 302 F2d 81), that a conviction cannot legally stand which is based upon evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure. We are of the opinion that the facts in the instant case do not come within this rule.

There was evidence adduced upon the trial of the case that a special agent of the State Revenue Department went to a house in Floyd County dressed as a service station operator. A woman came to the door and admitted him into the house. The defendant was in the house. After the agent asked for a pint of whisky, the defendant delivered to him a pint of nontax-paid whisky and accepted $2 in payment for the same. On another occasion the same witness returned to the house and the defendant sold him another pint of nontax-paid whisky for $2. The agent testified that he had no search warrant on either occasion.

The above evidence does not show a forceable entry or a refusal to honor constitutional rights of the defendant. In fact, there was no evidence of any search or seizure—legal or illegal. Accordingly, the court did not err in admitting in evidence the two pints of whisky. The court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Nichols, *P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
Order entered January 16 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01500 - CR LATORIA MATTOX, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Jud icial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15 - 00710 - U



### O RDER After Latoria Mattox filed an untimely notice of appeal in 05

- 18

- 00219

- CR, we dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. She then filed an article 11.072 writ of habe as corpus asking for an out

- of

- time appeal. The trial court granted her relief, and she filed her notice of appeal in this appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to transfer the clerk’s record from the appeal in cause no. 05

- 18

- 00219

- CR into the above a ppeal. The reporter’s record is due January 27, 2019. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre; court reporter Sasha Brooks; and to counsel for all parties. /s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Trinity County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet at the Trinity County schools office conference room on August 17, 2009 from 6:30 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss proposed projects under Title II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2008.

# DATES:

Monday, August 17, 2009 at 6:30 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Trinity County Office of Education, 201 Memorial Drive, Weaverville, CA 96093.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator John Heibel at 530-226-2524 or                         *jheibel@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Trinity County Resource Advisory Committee.

Dated: July 29, 2009.

Scott G. Armentrout,

Deputy Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

[FR Doc. E9-18617 Filed 8-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE M
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersignedPresident & Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certifies, that to their knowledge:

 

1)              the Company’s Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or78*o*(d));and

 

2)              the informationcontained in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/Martin J. Reid                       |   | /s/Debra L. Nelson            |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
| Martin J. Reid                          |   | Debra L. Nelson               |
| President & Chief Executive Officer |   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|                                    |   |                          |
| Date:   November 3, 2003           |   | Date:   November 3, 2003 |
|                                         |        |                               |        |  |

 

1

----
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 0646 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 -NM - 224 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 119

To commend the Women’s Track Team of Louisiana State University (LSU)

for winning the 1993 National Collegiate Athletic Association Outdoor

Track Championship, and for other achievements over the past seven

years.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 17 (legislative day, JUNE 15), 1993

Mr. JOHNSTON (for himself and Mr. BREAUX) submitted the following

resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To commend the Women’s Track Team of Louisiana State

University (LSU) for winning the 1993 National Collegiate Athletic Association Outdoor Track Championship,

and for other achievements over the past seven years.

Whereas the Women’s Track Team of Louisiana State University has completed another outstanding season in

which they have swept all four major championships;

Whereas the Lady Tiger Track Team of LSU has, for the

past seven years, dominated their sport to a degree rarely

seen in the history of collegiate athletics;

Whereas the LSU Lady Tigers have swept the Indoor and

Outdoor Southeastern Conference and NCAA Championships in four of the last seven years;
2

SRES 119 ATS

Whereas the LSU Lady Tigers have won the NCAA Outdoor

Championship for seven straight years;

Whereas the twelve members of the 1993 LSU Lady Tigers

combined to win twenty All-American awards;

Whereas Women’s Track Coach Pat Henry has done an outstanding job of leading the Lady Tigers for the past six

seasons; and

Whereas the LSU Lady Tigers won the 1993 Indoor and

Outdoor Track Championships: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate commends the Lady Tigers

2 of Louisiana State University for winning the 1993 Na3 tional Collegiate Athletic Association Indoor and Outdoor

4 Championships, and for their tremendous achievements

5 over the past seven years.

Æ