alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 34.9



|     |  |                                                                                                                              
|---- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Plante & Moran, PLLC
10 South Riverside Plaza 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: 312.207.1040 Fax:
312.207.1066 plantemoran.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

We have examined National Tax Search, LLC (the Company) compliance with Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for the National Tax Search TaxQ system (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015. The Company has determined
that only certain servicing criteria, 1112(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)2(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by
this report. The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements
assertion about the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included a selection of a
sample of transactions and compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination period and determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performed those activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our
testing of selected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations, reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may have
occurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2015 for the Platform is fairly stated in all material respects.

/s/ Plante & Moran,
PLCC

Chicago, IL

January 18, 2016



LOGO
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned officer of OGL Holdings, LTD. (the "Company"),
hereby certify to my knowledge that:



The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
2015 and this report on Form 10-K/A of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





| | /s/ Tian, Chunzhi,     
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| | Tian, Chunzhi          
| | Chief Executive
Officer



Date: June 15, 2016
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Kenneth C. Cole, Public Administrator of Westchester County, as Administrator of Salvatore De Masi, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County,

October 10, 1957.

*Fasso & Belserene*for petitioner.

*Fink, McNamee & Pavia*for Consul General of Italy at New York.

George. A. Brenner, S.

The Administrator will be authorized to compromise the cause of action for wrongful death for the *309amount proposed, and attorneys’ fees will be allowed in the amount requested. So far as appears, there was no conscious pain or suffering by decedent during the short interval of time which elapsed between the time of the accident and the death of decedent. Accordingly, the Administrator will be authorized to execute a general release with respect to any possible cause of action for personal injuries as well as for the cause of action for wrongful death. The absence of proof of any conscious pain and suffering requires that the entire proceeds of such compromise shall be allocated to the cause of action for wrongful death.

The amount of such attorneys’ fees, and the reasonable funeral expenses of decedent hereby allowed in the amount set forth in schedule D-l of the account, shall be deducted from the proceeds of the death action, and the net proceeds of such recovery after deducting the commissions allowable under section 133 of the Decedent Estate Law shall be distributed equally between the two surviving children of decedent.

Insofar as related to the proceeds of such compromise the decree shall provide for payment by the defendant or his insurance carrier , of the respective amounts hereby allowed and of the net distributive shares direct to the persons entitled thereto as hereinabove determined.

Settle decree.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67718-67719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28862]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Renewal of the Telecommunications Service Priority System 
Oversight Committee (TSPOC)

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The TSPOC has been renewed in consonance with the public 
interest, and in accordance with the provisions of Pub. L. 92-463, the 
``Federal Advisory Committee Act.''
    The TSPOC provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of 
Defense regarding the priority treatment of national security and 
emergency preparedness telecommunications services. Functions include 
evaluating the currency of policies, procedures and system 
documentation requirements, and assessing the adequacy of the system in 
the light of technological advances.
    The TSPOC will continue to be composed of 18 members, both federal, 
state and local government, and non-government individuals, who are 
experts in telecommunications services. Efforts will be made to ensure 
that there is a fairly balanced membership in terms of the functions to 
be performed and the interest groups represented.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Debbie Bea, National 
Communications

[[Page 67719]]

System, Defense Information Systems Agency, telephone: 703-607-4933.

    Dated: November 6, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-28862 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
#### John J. McNamara, Doing Business as McNamara Realty, Appellant, *v.*Anthony M. Viscio et al., Respondents.

County Court, Schenectady County,

May 8, 1958.

*855
      *Henry J. Horstman*for appellant.

*Nicholas J. Grasso*for respondents.

Archibald C. Wemple, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff for commissions allegedly becoming due under a purchase offer obtained by the plaintiff broker but never accepted by the defendant owners. The defendant owners had listed the property with the plaintiff broker for sale at a price of $17,900 and the plaintiff produced a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase for the price stated.

This appeal was submitted on the record, without argument. The record is clear in showing that the listing contract identified as Schedule A, attached to the complaint, provided that possession be “ arranged.” The record further clearly shows that the proposed offer, attached to the complaint and identified as Schedule B, provided, under paragraph 14, that “ physical possession of the premises shall be delivered on day of closing,” and in the next preceding paragraph there is a provision that closing is to be “ on or before the 1st day of May, 1957.” In the purchase offer referred to as Schedule B, and in a previous purchase offer, both rejected by the defendants, it is quite apparent that the defendant owners were not content with the possession date provisions thereof.

The rule of law in New York State governing the right of a real estate broker to commissions on a sale of property requires the broker to *produce a buyer willing and able to purchase on the seller’s terms.*The matter of possession was deferred to future decision. It was left open in the listing contract by the use of the expression *"*arranged.” Thus negotiations were anticipated to fix this item of the contract of sale.

The transfer of possession of real property is an important element in determining whether or not an owner wishes to sell to a prospective purchaser. Date of possession may mean the difference between renting temporary shelter, purchasing other property, storage of household goods and other items of significance in arriving at a decision whether to sell or not to sell. In this case, there appears never to have been a meeting of minds on this subject. It was to be *“*arranged,” but such arrangement as to possession was never brought into the contract by agreement between the negotiating parties. There*856fore, the plaintiff’s commission was not earned because he did not produce a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase on terms agreeable to the seller owners.

The judgment and order of the City Court referred to is hereby affirmed.

Submit order.
#### HESTER v. STATE.

No. 25628.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 9, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant entered a plea o-f guilty to the offense of disturbing the peace, and upon his conviction therefor, he was fined the sum o-f fifty dollars.

This case was originally tried in the Corporation Court of the City of Ker-mit in Winkler County. An appeal was prosecuted to the County Court of said county, where the case was tried de novo, resulting in the conviction of the appellant and the assessing of a fine as above stated.

Under the terms of Article 53, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., this court has no- jurisdiction of the appeal. See Corley v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 478, 149 S.W.2d 99, and cases there cited.

The appeal is dismissed.