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

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors, PNCFinancial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessmentof Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland LoanServices, a division of PNC Bank, National Association (“Midland”or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for alltransactions serviced on the *Enterprise!* Loan Management System (the“Platform”), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended,excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C),1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicingactivities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management isresponsible 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 conductedin accordance 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 selectedasset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing ofselected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed bythe Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that Midland complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 17, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106*

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816)218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

July 16, 2010

Mr. Mitchell Madden

MaddenSwell, LLP

1755 Wittington Place, Suite 300

Dallas, TX 75234

Honorable Tracy K. Christopher

14th Court of Appeals

1307 San Jacinto, 11th Floor

Houston, TX 77002

Honorable Caroline E. Baker

295th Civil District Court

Harris County Civil Courthouse

201 Caroline, 14th Floor

Houston, TX 77002

Mr. J. Brett Busby

Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP

711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300

Houston, TX 77002

RE:Case Number:  10-0270

Court of Appeals Number:  01-10-00285-CV

Trial Court Number:  0680212

Style:IN RE  GENE E. PHILLIPS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND D/B/A PHILLIPS OIL INTERESTS, ET AL.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas lifted the abatement order issued June 18, 2010 and reinstated the petition for writ of mandamus in the above-referenced case.  (Justice Guzman not sitting)

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 10-0270Page 1**
# C_2015354EN.01005501.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/55

---

Action brought on 16 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-103/15)

(2015/C 354/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Falagiani, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to withhold the sum of EUR 14  207,60 from the applicant’s pension by way of reimbursement of costs relating to hospital treatment received by his wife, as a consequence of the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal annulling the Commission’s initial decision that the applicant should bear all the hospital costs deemed excessive.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, in breach of the ruling given by the Civil Service Tribunal on 16 May 2013 and for all the reasons set out in the body of the application, the European Commission unlawfully withheld from the applicant’s pension the sum of EUR 14  207,60; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, in breach of the ruling given by the Civil Service Tribunal on 16 May 2013 and for all the reasons set out in the body of the application, the European Commission unlawfully withheld from the applicant’s pension the sum of EUR 14  207,60;

| — | Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way of reimbursement of the amount unduly withheld, the sum of EUR 14  207,60, together with default interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way of reimbursement of the amount unduly withheld, the sum of EUR 14  207,60, together with default interest;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

---
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6899

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RODERICK EMMANUEL STEADMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CR-00-248-A; CA-01-1573-A)

Submitted: February 20, 2004 Decided: March 11, 2004

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roderick Emmanuel Steadman, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Roderick Emmanuel Steadman, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Although we initially

dismissed this appeal on the ground that Steadman failed to file a

timely notice of appeal, we granted Steadman’s rehearing petition

and have considered the issues raised in his informal brief. We

now dismiss the case on the ground that Steadman has failed to meet

the standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by

a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Steadman has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
- 3 -

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
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A2 09 4 . FERNAKEY J UAN PASS v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 1 6
, Fern ak ey J u an Pas s p l ed g u i l t y t o v o lu n t ary m an s l au g h ter, ag g rav at ed

as s au l t , an d p o ss es s i o n o f a fi rearm d u ri n g t h e co m m i s s i o n o f a fel o ny

. On No v em b er 6 , 2 01 8 , Pas s fi l ed a p ro s e m o t i o n fo r an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal . Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed

t h e m o ti o n o n Jan u ary 1 0
, 2 0 1 9
, an d Pas s fi l ed h i s n o t i ce o f ap p eal o n Feb ru ary 2 2,
2 0 1 9 . W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i on b ecau s e t h e n o t i ce o f ap p eal was n o t t im el y fi led

. A n o t i ce o f ap p eal m

u s t b e fi l ed w i t hi n 3 0 d ay s of en t ry o f t h e o rd er s o u g h t to
b e ap peal ed . OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). T h e pro p er an d t im el y fi l i n g o f a n o ti ce of ap p eal
i s an ab so l u t e req u i rem en t t o co n fer ju ri s d i ct i o n o n th i s Co u rt

. Ro wl a n d v. S t a t e , 2 6 4
Ga. 8 7 2
, 8 7 2 (1 ) (4 5 2 SE2 d 7 5 6 ) (1 9 9 5 ). Becau s e Pas s fi l ed hi s n ot ice o f ap p eal 4 3
d ay s a f t e r e n t ry o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er, h i s ap p eal i s u n t im el y , an d i t i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

. Th e St at e’ s m o ti o n t o d i s m i ss fo r fai l ure t o fi l e
a t im el y ap p el l at e b ri ef i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED as m o o t

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. July 01, 2019

07/01/2019
# Official Journal L 133/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 133 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5829 May 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 133

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5829 May 2015

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2015/812 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2187/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 2347/2002 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards the landing obligation, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) 2015/812 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2187/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 2347/2002 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards the landing obligation, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1434/98

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7384

DARREN M. ROWE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00383-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: February 27, 2020 Decided: March 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darren M. Rowe, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darren M. Rowe seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 

(2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, 

running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) 

(2018)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2018). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, 

the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and 

that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 

565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rowe has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0459 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DEANDRE LARON GULLEY,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 14 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 6 2024

05/06/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0459
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of United Air Lines, Inc.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

Each
undersigned officer certifies that to the best of his knowledge based on a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008
of United Air Lines, Inc. (the "Report"):



Date:
May 9, 2008

|/s/GLENN F. TILTONGlenn F. Tilton
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer          |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/FREDERIC F. BRACEFrederic F. Brace
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 10.3
​

CERTAIN IDENTIFIED INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH NOT MATERIAL AND IS THE TYPE THAT THE REGISTRANT TREATS AS PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL. REDACTED INFORMATION IS INDICATED BY [****].
SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of March 15, 2022, by and between by and between [****] (the “Seller”), and ALPINE INCOME PROPERTY OP, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (“Buyer”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated effective as of January 28, 2022, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement made as of March 1, 2022 (collectively, the “Agreement”), regarding the purchase and sale of nine (9) parcels of land and related improvements thereon, as more particularly described in the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals (which are incorporated herein by this reference), and the covenants, terms and conditions contained herein and in the Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1.Defined Terms.  Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.
2.[****]
3.[****]
4.Closing.  The Closing shall occur on March 25, 2022.
5.[****]   
6.Full Force and Effect.  Except as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect and is hereby ratified by the parties hereto.  In the event that any of the terms or conditions of the Agreement conflict with this Amendment, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control.  Any references to the “Agreement” in the Agreement or any document delivered in connection therewith shall be deemed to mean the Agreement as amended hereby.
7.Counterparts; Signatures.  This Amendment may be executed and delivered by PDF, email or facsimile signatures and in several or separate counterparts, and each counterpart, when so executed and delivered, shall constitute an original agreement, and all such separate counterparts shall constitute but one and the same agreement.
​

​



​

​
[Signatures Appear on the Following Page]

SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT – Page 2
3945285-1 13170.009000




​

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the day and year first above.
	​
	SELLER:

[****] 
​

	​
	BUYER:

ALPINE INCOME PROPERTY OP, LP, a Delaware limited partnership
​
By:

Alpine Income Property GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its General Partner



​

By:

Alpine Income Property Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation, its Sole Member



​
​
By: /s/ Steven R. Greathouse
Name: steven R. Greathouse
Title: SVP-Chief Investment Officer
​



​

SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT – Page 3
3945285-1 13170.009000




​

EXHIBIT A
​
[****]

SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT – Page 4
3945285-1 13170.009000
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 693/2005

of 2 May 2005         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 May 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 May 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 2 May 2005 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v KENNETH R. PAXIAO, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

18 USCMA 608, 40 CMR *320*

No. 22,230

September 26, 1969

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Lee A. Rau,*and *Captain Robert B. Harrison, III,*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Major R. Kevin McHugh*and *Captain James L. Rider*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

The accused pleaded guilty before a general court-martial, convened at the Presidio of San Francisco, California, to charges of being ■ absent without leave, desertion, and wrongful appropriation of a truck, in violation of Articles 86, 85, and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10'USC §§ 886, 885, and 921, respectively. We granted review to determine the validity of his conviction of the wrongful appropriation of the truck (Additional Charge II), in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Callahan v Parker, 395 US 258, 23 L Ed-2d 291, 89 S Ct 1683 (1969).

In view of the plea, evidence presented at trial in the form of a stipulation of fact (Prosecution Exhibit 1) reflected the following information concerning Additional Charge II:

> ■ “IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the Prosecution and the- Defense with-the express consent of the Accused, that:.

> 

> “That on 4 September 1968, Private Paxiao discovered a 1954 Ford Pick-up Truck, of some value, owned by'Mr. Joseph Aguillar of San Mateo, parked on Wright Loop, Presidio of *609San Francisco^ with the ignition key in the truck. The accused, as driver, and another soldier drove the truck across the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge to San Leandro, California, where they were apprehended by civilian police and returned to military control at 1315 hours on 4 September 1968, approximately three and one-half hours after they had left the Presidio of San Francisco, California.”

While it is apparent that the crime was committed against a civilian and that civilian property was involved, the offense occurred on the Presidio of San Francisco, a military reservation. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that since the crime directly affected “the security of a military post” (O’Callahan v Parker, supra, 395 US, at page 274), there is a sufficient basis to sustain military jurisdiction. O’Callahan v Parker, supra. See also United States v Crapo. 18 USCMA 594, 40 CMR 306.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge DaR-den concur.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 on Form 10-QSB of Regency
Affiliates, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence S. Levy, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as
      of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the
      Company for the periods presented.

Dated: August 17, 2007


/s/ Laurence S. Levy
--------------------------------------
Laurence S. Levy
President and Chief Executive Officer