alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Credit Suisse First BostonMortgage Securities Corp. 

11 MADISON AVE

NEW YORK, New York 10010-3643

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.,Commercial  Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C2

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of May 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned,a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as CertificateAdministrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of andfor the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
Case 3:22-cv-00715-S-BK   Document 41   Filed 11/22/23    Page 1 of 1   PageID 216
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO

. A

- 4205

- 18T2

ERNEST BOZZI,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY , and IRENE MCNULTY , Defendants

- Appellant s
.

____________________________

Submitted March 23, 2020

– Decided April 15, 2020 Before Judges Sabatino, Sumners and Geiger.
On a ppeal f

rom the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County , Docket No. L

- 0 354

- 19

. Peter J. Baker , Corporation Counsel , attorney for appellants ( Maura E. Connelly, Assistant Corporat ion Counsel , and John A. McKinney , III , Assistant Corporat ion Counsel, on the brief s ). Donald M. Doherty, Jr., attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the internet , this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R

. 1:36

- 3.2 A

- 4205

- 18T2

Defendants Jersey City and Irene McNulty (City Clerk of Jersey City and
Custodian of R ecords ) , appeal the order of Judge Francis B. Schultz directing
defendants , in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A.
47:1A

- 1 to

- 13 , to provide pla intiff Ernest Bozzi with the names and addresses
of individual s possess ing a dog license issued by Jersey City. Plaintiff requested
the information to solicit customers for his invisible dog fence installation
business. Before us, defendants co n tend : POI NT I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT IN PLAINTIFF’S OPRA REQUEST WAS NOT PROTECTED BY THE PRIVACY PROTECTIONS OF N.J.S.A. 47:1A

- 1

. POINT II
THE LOWER COURT ALSO ERRED IN FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO THE INFORMATION SOUGHT IN HIS OPRA REQUEST UNDER THE COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS

. Defendants add the following argument i n their reply brief :

PLAINTIFF MISINTERPRETS MUCH OF THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON IN HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ APPEAL

.3 A

- 4205

- 18T2

Because t he issue s and arguments raised in this appeal mirror those
resolved in our recent published decision in Bozzi v. Borough of Roselle Park , ____ N.J. Super. ____ (App. Div. 2020) , where we held the plaintiff was entitled
under OPRA to the names and addresses of dog license es issued by the defendant municipalities, we affirm

. A ffirmed.
#### GARBS v. STATE.

No. 25018.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 6, 1950.

W. J. Baldwin, Beaumont, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

In March, 1950, appellant pleaded guilty before the court to the felony offense of driving while intoxicated, and his punishment was fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year. The imposition of sentence upon that judgment was by the trial court suspended, and appellant was placed upon probation, under the power and authority conferred by Art. 781b, Vernon’s Gode of Criminal Procedure, known as the Adult Probation and Parole Law..

About two months thereafter, the trial court, upon motion of the district attorney, revoked the probation.

The judgment of revocation recites that “the defendant is hereby sentenced to serve one (1) year in the penitentiary of the State of Texas.”

Unless the language just above quoted constitutes a sentence, within the meaning *870of the law, the record does not reflect that sentence has been passed upon the appellant.

A sentence is the order of the court, made in the presence of the defendant and entered of record, pronouncing the judgment and ordering the same to be carried into execution in the manner prescribed by law. Art. 767, C.C.P.

There appears no fixed or inflexible form to be used for the sentence. The one mandatory provision is that it “shall be pronounced in the presence of the defendant * * *.” Art. 768, C.C.P.

There is nothing in this record showing that this mandatory provision of the statute was complied with. The order revoking the probation and attempting to pronounce sentence nowhere contains a recital that same was done in the presence of the appellant.

We are constrained to conclude that, as here presented, no sentence has been pronounced against appellant, as required by law.

A sentence in a felony case is the final judgment, and necessary for the jurisdiction of this court over the appeal. Supporting authorities will be found under Note 3 of Art. 769, Vernon’s C.C.P.

Because this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, the appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the court.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                            ACT MANUFACTURING, INC.


               Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Common Share

                   THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND 1997
                      (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          1998        1997
                                                                       -----------  ---------
BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:
<S>                                                                    <C>          <C>
  Net income (loss) as reported.....................................      $(1,126)     $3,361
  Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:
     Common Stock...................................................        9,062       8,816
                                                                          -------      ------
     Basic net income (loss) per common share.......................      $ (0.12)     $  .38
                                                                          =======      ======
 
DILUTED NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:
  Net income (loss) as reported.....................................      $(1,126)     $3,361
  Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:
     Common Stock...................................................        9,062       8,816
     Effect of stock options........................................           --         311
                                                                          -------      ------
        Total.......................................................        9,062       9,127
                                                                          -------      ------
     Diluted net income (loss) per common share.....................      $ (0.12)     $  .37
                                                                          =======      ======
 
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-122-X

§

VICTOR DIAZ-RESENDIZ (1) §

§

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a Plea of Guilty, 

the Consent of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United 

States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by 

the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and VICTOR DIAZ-RESENDIZ (1) is hereby 

adjudged guilty of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) – Illegal Reentry After Removal from the United States. Sentence will 

be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

 The defendant is ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The Court adopts the findings of the United States Magistrate Judge by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if 

released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ Upon motion, this matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who set 

the conditions of release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the 

defendant is likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under § 

3142(b) or (c).

☐ The defendant is not ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) pending determination of 

whether it has been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under § 3145(c) why the 

defendant should not be detained under § 3143(a)(2), and whether it has been shown by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the 

community if released under § 3142(b) or (c). This matter shall be referred to the United States 

Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of release.

Signed this 3rd day of January, 2023.

________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cr-00122-X Document 21 Filed 01/03/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 28
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 191

To urge the Secretary of State to actively engage in negotiations with the

signatories of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status

of Refugees to establish international first safe haven procedures for

aliens claiming political asylum.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 22, 1993

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, and Mr.

REGULA) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To urge the Secretary of State to actively engage in negotiations with the signatories of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees to establish international first safe haven procedures for aliens claiming

political asylum.

Whereas the United States continues to recognize the need

to ensure asylum for individuals who legitimately face

persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality,

or political beliefs;

Whereas there are strong economic incentives for claiming

asylum in the United States;

Whereas political asylum requests last year were higher than

ever before in American history and have already ex-
2

•HCON 191 IH

ceeded 100,000 this year, up from less than 5,000 in

1980;

Whereas asylum applications have already amassed a

300,000 case backlog and continue to increase at a rapid

rate;

Whereas the increase in asylum applications in the United

States has rendered current procedures insufficient to ensure protection for American citizens from the dangers of

terrorism;

Whereas the number of fraudulent claims and prevalence of

asylum abuse greatly hampers the ability of the United

States to assist individuals who present legitimate claims;

Whereas aliens who are most in need of political asylum

should logically seek safe haven where it is most immediately available; and

Whereas the European Asylum Convention (drafted in Dublin

on June 15, 1990) is a suitable framework for achieving

uniform procedures for processing asylum applications:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 Secretary of State should actively engage in negotiations

4 with the signatories of the United Nations Convention Re5 lating to the Status of Refugees to establish uniform inter6 national procedures limiting asylum requests to the first

7 nation a refugee passes through that is a signatory to the

8 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of

9 Refugees.
3

•HCON 191 IH

Æ
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark I. Gittelman, certify that:


1. I have  reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10-K of Elite  Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (the "registered");

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  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 annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

          a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

          b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

          c)  presented  in  this  annual  report  our  conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent evaluation,  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 in the design or operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that  involves  management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls; and



Date:  June 28, 2005                       /s/  Mark Gittelman
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Case 6:22-cr-00010-H-BU Document 26 Filed 12/12/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 46
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER98-3382-001]

Take notice that on October 13, 2000, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E), tendered for filing in compliance with the Commission's order issued September 12, 1997 in the above-referenced proceeding, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, 80 FERC ¶ 61,284 (1997), an update to the market power study originally submitted in support of RG&E's request for market-based rate authority.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or November 3, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27770  Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### White *v.*White, Appellant.

*Contracts*— Support *agreements*— Surety—Subsequent *arrest of husband*— Effect *on obligation of surety.*

The surety on an agreement by a husband to pay his wife a stipulated weekly sum for the support of their minor children, is not relieved from his obligation by the fact that the wife subsequently brought nonsupport proceedings against her husband; such action being rather to the relief of the surety than to his prejudice.

Argued Jan. 11,1916.

Appeal, No. 218, Jan. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1910, No. 2391, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Caddie White v. Stacy H. White.

Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Stewart, Frazer and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit on a support contract. Before Audenried, J.

From the record it appeared that on November 23, 1904, Charles H. White, the plaintiff’s husband was imprisoned in Norristown, Pa., as the result of nonsupport proceedings instituted against him by the plaintiff. On the same day, the defendant by writing under seal bound himself to become surety for the making of certain payments that plaintiff’s husband had, by a bond given on the same day, obligated himself to make to the plaintiff for the support of their two children. The husband was discharged from custody and the pending proceedings were terminated. After making weekly payments for five weeks, the husband refused to continue further payments; the plaintiff instituted new proceedings in the Quarter Sessions Court of Philadelphia County for the support of the children in which proceedings the husband was arrested and twice imprisoned. The plaintiff subsequently brought suit on the defendant’s agreement *491to recover payments in arrears. The trial judge directed a verdict for plaintiff but allowed the jury to determine the amount which plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Verdict for plaintiff for $1,519.34 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Errors assigned*were rulings on evidence, instructions to the jury, the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for defendant and to enter judgment for defendant n. o. v.

*John O. Gilpin,*with him *Graham & Gilfbllan,*for appellant.

*Henry J. Scott,*for appellee.

March 6, 1916:

Per Curiam,

This action was brought against the appellant as surety on an agreement by appellee’s husband to pay her a stipulatéd weekly sum for the support of their minor children. It was not shown, and there was no competent offer to show, that the appellant had been released from his obligation. The action subsequently taken by the appellee against her husband was rather in relief of the appellant than to his prejudice, and was in no sense an abandonment of the agreement by her. The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 112

To express the sense of Congress in support of consumer labeling utilizing

an American and foreign flag program, labeling all goods and services.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 16, 1993

Mrs. BENTLEY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To express the sense of Congress in support of consumer

labeling utilizing an American and foreign flag program,

labeling all goods and services.

Whereas it is important to secure American growth in a competitive global economy;

Whereas many Americans would prefer to buy American

goods and services;

Whereas a program labeling all goods and services with

American flags and foreign flags, provides accessible

consumer information to enable citizens to identify products that are made by Americans with parts that are

made in America in companies that are American-owned;

Whereas providing this information by utilizing American and

foreign flags, enables Americans to buy American prod-
2

HCON 112 IH

ucts, promotes American enterprises, and helps protect

American jobs;

Whereas a program of American and foreign flag labeling

empowers industries in the United States by emphasizing

the importance of United States product integrity in relation to the future of the economic survival of the United

States;

Whereas over two dozen major American companies have

begun labeling their products with American flags and

foreign flags; and

Whereas South Dakota and Iowa Legislatures have endorsed

the concept of consumers utilizing flags: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), It is the sense of Congress in support of

3 consumer labeling utilizing an American and foreign flag

4 program for labeling all goods and services.

Æ