alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,398,284
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,797,320
<ALLOWANCES>                                        56,240
<INVENTORY>                                      8,122,235
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,729,945
<PP&E>                                           4,214,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,296,046
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,431,137
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,114,628
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            221
<COMMON>                                           560,388
<OTHER-SE>                                         848,386
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,431,137
<SALES>                                         13,605,612
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,605,837
<CGS>                                           11,181,983
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,436,941
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (33,876)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 701,596
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,498,824)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,498,824)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,498,824)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.01)



</TABLE>
NO. PD-0172-15

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

No. 01-13-00373-CR

NORMA CLARK

Appeal from Cause Number 1295757

From the 228th District Court 

Harris County

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

APPELLANT’S FINAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION

FOR 4 DAYS

WITH PDR ALREADY FILED

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

COMES NOW, NORMA CLARK, and files this Final Motion to Extend Time to File 

PDR, and in support thereof, would respectfully show the Court the following:

I.

The First Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in an opinion dated 

January 13, 2015. Clark v. State, 01-13-00373-CR, 2015 WL 162257 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 13, 2015, no. pet. h.). One motion for extension was granted 

and the PDR was due on March 16, 2015. The PDR was filed on March 20, 2015.

II.

Counsel humbly requests this extension due to the fact that counsel suffers from a 

chronic painful condition that has recently caused a disruption in counsel’s work 

schedule and slightly delayed the filing of the PDR in this important and complex 

case.

Additionally, counsel has been engaged in work in the Harris County Public 

Defender’s Office on many cases, including the following:

 Lenin Lopez, 01-13-01079-CR, reversed and set for retrial in cause #1403196

PD-0172-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 3/23/2015 9:02:51 AM

Accepted 3/25/2015 10:53:40 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
 Vincent William, #1420283

 Darryle Robertson, 14-15-00132-CR

 Rodney Robins, 01-14-00582-CR

 Craig Beal, 01-12-00896-CR

 Abner Washington, 01-14-00885-CR

 Forest Penton, 14-14-00406-CR

 Leonard Storemski, 14-14-00920-CR

 Felix Irizarry, 14-14-00827-CR

 Eddie Aldape, 14-14-00996-CR

 Leslie Markle, 01-13-01028-CR

 Counsel has been researching and writing for several trial cases assigned to the 

Public Defender’s Office Trial Division.

III.

Appellant’s attorney requests an extension of 4 days, which is necessary so that the 

brief can be thoroughly written and timely filed. This motion is not made for the 

purpose of delay.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this Honorable Court 

grants this requested extension of time to file the PDR in the above cause and extend 

the time for filing to the date PDR was filed or March 20, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDER BUNIN

Chief Public Defender

Harris County, Texas

/s/ Sarah V. Wood 

 SARAH V. WOOD

Assistant Public Defender 
Harris County, Texas

Texas Bar Number 24048898

1201 Franklin, 13th Floor

Houston Texas 77002

713.368.0016 (phone)

713.368.9278 (fax)

Sarah.Wood@pdo.hctx.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

By my signature below, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and 

foregoing Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File PDR has been served via the 

efile service on the Harris County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ Sarah V. Wood 

Sarah V. Wood
#### § 1022.314 Structured transactions.

Refer to § 1010.314 of this chapter for rules regarding structured transactions for money services businesses.
§ 25.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when tax return preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters. ( a ) *In general.* For rules for the extension of period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for gift tax under chapter 12 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability, and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under section 6694(a) and (b), the rules under § 1.6694-4 of this chapter will apply.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78452, Dec. 22, 2008]
| (logo) ncb  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011 Crystal Drive  Suite, 8oo  Arlington, VA 22202 |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**FORMOF ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

WellsFargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-LC25, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2016-LC25 (the “Trust”)

 

I,Karyn Mann, on behalf of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB SpecialServicer (the “Certifying Servicer”), certify to Wells FargoCommercial Mortgage Securities,  Inc. and its officers, directors andaffiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that they will rely upon thiscertification, that:

 

1.I (or Servicing Officers under my supervision) have reviewed the CertifyingServicer’s activities during the preceding calendar year between January1, 2016 and December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) andthe Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement; and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects during the Reporting Period.

 

 

Date: February 6, 2017

 

NationalCooperative Bank, N.A., 

asNCB Special Servicer

 

By:/s/ Karyn Mann

Name:Karyn Mann

Title:Senior Vice President
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 27, 2009

p0518 

# Order

May 27, 2009

138231 & (14)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138231 COA: 289300 Oakland CC: 2007-212764-FH ROGER JONES II, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the January 15, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we ar e not persuaded that the question presented
should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Steven Maldonado, Respondent, v 1992 Fulton Realty Corp., Appellant.

[802 NYS2d 621]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered April 16, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if defendant landowner complied with the applicable statutes and regulations, that circumstance would not, under the facts at bar, be dispositive of whether defendant discharged its common-law duty to maintain its premises in reasonably safe condition *(see Kellman v 45 Tiemann Assoc.,*87 NY2d 871 [1995] ; *Swerdlow v WSK Props. Corp.,*5 AD3d 587 [2004]). On the present record, a factfinder could infer that plaintiff’s fall and injury were attributable to irregular, unrailed, or unlit building entry stairs. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934 AND SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First Keystone Financial, Inc. (the
Registrant);
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 (b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and
 (c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the
audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: February 14, 2008
    /s/ Thomas M. KellyThomas M. KellyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Earl Garvin, Appellant.

[802 NYS2d 689]

*156Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered July 3, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly imposed an enhanced sentence after a thorough inquiry into whether defendant had violated a condition of his plea *(see People v Outley,*80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]). The evidence before the sentencing court clearly established defendant’s guilt of the misconduct at issue, and he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing *(see People v Amaker,*299 AD2d 238 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 625 [2003]). The People presented compelling documentary evidence leading to an inescapable inference that defendant was the author of a threatening letter, and that he made phone calls that also violated the plea conditions *(cf. People v Hamilton,*3 AD3d 405 [2004], *mod on other grounds 4*NY3d 654 [2005]).

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate his plea *(see People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520 [1978]). The record establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and that defendant’s claim of duress was groundless. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Andolina, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 399]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered May 20, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of robbery in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Samwell,*287 AD2d 663 [2001]; *People v West,*233 AD2d 277 [1996]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of robbery in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Cannon,*1 AD3d 606 [2003]; *People v Lawson,*184 AD2d 588, 589 [1992]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Rayam,*94 NY2d 557, 562 [2000]; *People v Cannon, supra; People v West, supra).*Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the acquittal on the robbery in the first degree count *(see*Penal Law § 160.15 [3]) did not undermine the weight and sufficiency of the evidence on the robbery in the third degree count *(see*Penal Law § 160.05), of which the defendant was convicted *(see People v Rayam, supra*at 563; *People v Cannon, supra; People v West, supra; People v Rodriguez,*179 AD2d 554 [1992]).

Further, the defendant’s argument that the court’s excusal of *574four Orthodox Jewish prospective jurors because they could not serve on the upcoming Jewish holidays deprived him of his right to a jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the argument is without merit *(see People v Paulino,*287 AD2d 302 [2001]; *People v Marrero,*110 AD2d 785 [1985]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Crane, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
See below from Region 2.

Juan 

----- Forwarded by Juan Santiago/RTP/USEPA/US on 12/14/2010 09:56 AM -----

From: Steven Riva/R2/USEPA/US

To: Juan Santiago/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Raymond Werner/R2/USEPA/US@EPA, Umesh Dholakia/R2/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Frank Jon/R2/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/14/2010 07:15 AM

Subject: Re: Need some additional information from regions on title V narrowing

Juan,

This is to confirm that Puerto Rico should be moved to the no-narrowing group because they presently 

don't have the legal authority to regulated GHG's in their title V program. Although they are in the process 

of revising their regulations to obtain this authority, this change will not occur by January 2, 2011. We 

don't expect to have these regulations in place until March/April of 2011. Please see the attached email 

from Luis Sierra, Air Director at the PREQB, for their time-table. If you have any questions or need any 

additional information, please give me a call at (212) 637-4074.

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

From: "Sierra Torres, Luis R." <LuisSierra@jca.gobierno.pr>

To: Umesh Dholakia/R2/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Delgado Medero, Leimarys" <LeimarysDelgado@jca.gobierno.pr>, Richard 

Ruvo/R2/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/10/2010 02:50 PM

Subject: RE: EPA's Tailoring Rule for the GHGs

Umesh:

My apologies for the delay. We are waiting for the Public Hearing Office to 

assign date of the hearing. Once we obtain the date, there will be around 5 

days for Notice, 30 days for comments, 1 day for public hearing, 30 days for 

public hearing report, 5-10 days for Governing Board approval and 5-10 days 

for submission to State Department and 1-5 days for submissions to EPA. 

Since we have been unable to obtain the date, I could only provide with timetable instead of dates. As soon as we have a date confirmed for the public 

hearing, we will provide more accurate information.

Also, I want to mention that based on EPA comments, EQB substantially modify 

the amendments. We are including the document that was sent for publication. 

Any comments from EPA will be incorporated as part of the public hearing 

process.
IV

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 192

Providing for an adjournment of both Houses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 27, 1996

Mr. DIAZ-BALART submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of both Houses.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive days of Thursday, June 27, 1996, or Friday, June

4 28, 1996, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority

5 Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until noon on

6 Monday, July 8, 1996, or until noon on the second day

7 after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to sec8 tion 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first;

9 and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close

10 of business on Thursday, June 27, 1996, Friday, June

11 28, 1996, Saturday, June 29, 1996, or Sunday, June 30,

12 1996, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader
2

HCON 192 ATH

1 or his designee in accordance with this resolution, it stand

2 recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, July 8,

3 1996, or until such time on that day as may be specified

4 by the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to

5 recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after

6 Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section

7 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

8 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

9 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

10 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead11 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

12 and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their

13 opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
§ 1030.520 Special information sharing procedures to deter money laundering and terrorist activity for housing government sponsored enterprises. ( a ) Refer to § 1010.520 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
§ 128.3 Use of information reported. ( a ) Except for use in violation and enforcement proceedings pursuant to the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act, 22 U.S.C. 3101 *et seq.,* information submitted by any individual respondent on reports required under subpart B of this part may be used only for analytical and statistical purposes within the United States Government and will not be disclosed publicly by the Department of the Treasury, or by any other Federal agency or Federal Reserve district bank having access to the information as provided herein. Aggregate data derived from these forms may be published or otherwise publicly disclosed only in a manner which will not reveal the amounts reported by any individual respondent. The Department may furnish information from these forms to the Federal Reserve Board and to Federal agencies to the extent permitted by applicable law.
( b ) The information submitted by any individual respondent on reports required under subpart C of this part will not be disclosed publicly. Aggregated data may be published or disclosed only in a manner which will not reveal the information reported by any individual respondent. The Department may furnish to Federal agencies, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and to Federal Reserve district banks data reported pursuant to subpart C of this part to the extent permitted by applicable law.
§ 50.2 Scope of regulations. ( a ) *In general.* The regulations in this part relate to the tax imposed with respect to hydraulic mining, the debris from which flows into or is in whole or in part restrained by dams or other works erected for the detention of debris by the California Debris Commission in the area drained by the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems in the State of California. The regulations have application to taxable years beginning after August 31, 1959. For definition of the term *taxable year,* see § 50.3(g).
( b ) *Extent to which the regulations in this part supersede prior regulations.* The regulations in this part, with respect to the subject matter within the scope thereof, supersede Treasury Decision 4952 (26 CFR (1939) part 317).