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 criteria1122(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), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which theCompany has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performedby it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company'scompliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express anopinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

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 the Company’scompliance 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*
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 8 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 8

 Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States House of 
 Representatives and Senate should pass health care reform initiatives 
   which have received overwhelming bipartisan support, prior to the 
                   adjournment of the 103d Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Stearns submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
referred jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Congress that`the United States House of 
 Representatives and Senate should pass health care reform initiatives 
   which have received overwhelming bipartisan support, prior to the 
                   adjournment of the 103d Congress.

Whereas 31 to 37 million Americans do not have adequate health care coverage;
Whereas every day, Americans who have health care coverage fear they may lose it 
        due to a sudden catastrophic illness or change in employment;
Whereas the skyrocketing costs of health care jeopardizes the current and future 
        accessibility of health care for millions of Americans;
Whereas physicians must practice medicine in constant fear of excessive 
        malpractice lawsuits being brought against them for providing treatment 
        to patients;
Whereas fraud and abuse in the health care system is running rampant and 
        American taxpayers are losing billions of dollars;
Whereas the American public is demanding action on health care reform and cannot 
        wait any longer for the Congress to act; and
Whereas partisanship must not stand in the way of progress in health care 
        reform: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the leadership of the United States House of Representatives and 
Senate should work together in a bipartisan manner to pass health care 
reform initiatives which have received overwhelming bipartisan support, 
prior to the adjournment of the 103d Congress.

                                 <all>
```
#### DAVIS v. STATE.

No. 21398.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 29, 1941.

T. J. Wright and James E. Faulkner, both of Henderson, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for assault with intent to murder with malice aforethought, and punishment was assessed at four years in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. In such condition nothing of a procedural nature is before this court for review. It is obvious, however, that in pronouncing sentence the court failed to give effect to the indeterminate sentence law, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 775, and the sentence is reformed condemning appellant to confinement in the penitentiary for not less than two years nor more than four years.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 232

Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 24, 1994

Mr. GEPHARDT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, March 24, 1994, it stand adjourned

4 until noon on Tuesday, April 12, 1994, or until noon on

5 the second day after Members are notified to reassemble

6 pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which7 ever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or

8 adjourns at the close of business on Friday, March 25,

9 1994, Saturday, March 26, 1994, Monday, March 28,

10 1994, Tuesday, March 29, 1994, Wednesday, March 30,

11 1994, or Thursday, March 31, 1994, pursuant to a motion

12 made by the majority leader or his designee, in accordance
2

HCON 232 ATH

1 with this resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until

2 noon on Monday, April 11, 1994, or at such time on that

3 day as may be specified by the majority leader or his des4 ignee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon

5 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem6 ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

7 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 leader

11 of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and

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

13 opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. MAR I O A L B E R T O A L ON S OMAL DO NA DO , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10555 D . C . N o . 2 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 1 9 7 - G MN ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da G l or i aM . N a va rr o, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry21, 2012 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , M cK E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M ar i o A l bert o A l on so-M al do nado appeal s f rom the 46 -m on th sent ence i m pos e d f

ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on f orbe i ng ade port e d a l i e n f ound unl a w f ul l yi n the U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326. W e ha ve 

# FI LED FEB 23 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 10555 2 j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. A l on so-M al do nado cont ends thathi s s ent ence i s s ub st ant i vel y unrea sonabl e, i n l i gh tof the st al enes s of hi s pri or conv i ct i on and h i s c ul tural as si m i l at i on . U nd er the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s, i ncl ud i ng A l on so-M al do nado ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory a nd thr e e pr e vi ous de port a t i ons , the s e nt e nc e a tthe bott om of the G ui de l i ne s r a nge is s u b s ta n tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . See 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) ; G al l v. U ni ted States , 552 U . S . 38 , 51 (200 7). T o the ext entA l on so-M al do nado cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourt procedural l y e rr ed by fa i l i ng t o p rovi de an adequat e e xp l anat i on for the se nt ence , th e r e c o r db e lie s h is c o n te n tio n . Se e U n ite d S ta tes v . Ca r ty , 5 2 0 F .3 d9 8 4 , 9 9 2 ( 9 th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). AF F I RME D.
Presidential Documents

68061

Federal Register

Vol. 65, No. 219

Monday, November 13, 2000

Title 3—

The President

Notice of November 9, 2000

Continuation of Iran Emergency

On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the President declared

a national emergency to deal with the threat to the national security, foreign

policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the situation in

Iran. Since that time, notices of the continuation of this national emergency

have been transmitted annually by the President to the Congress and published in the Federal Register. The most recent notice appeared in the

Federal Register on November 5, 1999. Because our relations with Iran

have not yet returned to normal, and the process of implementing the

January 19, 1981, agreements with Iran is still underway, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, must continue in effect beyond

November 14, 2000. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the

National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national

emergency with respect to Iran for 1 year. This notice shall be published

in the Federal Register 

œ–

and transmitted to the Congress.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

November 9, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–29242

Filed 11–9–00; 1:20 pm]

Billing code 3195–01–P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          19,166
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 8,500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    141,109
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          23,759
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            23,797
<LOANS>                                        292,618<F1>
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 508,333
<DEPOSITS>                                     394,630
<SHORT-TERM>                                    43,924
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,410
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,317
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 508,333
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,900
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,147
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   333
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                18,380
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,030
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,430
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,950
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      150
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   7
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,907
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,907
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,612
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.84
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,526
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,099
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   155
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,587
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      212
<RECOVERIES>                                       164
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,689
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,689
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>Includes mortgages available-for-sale and net of allowance
for loan losses
of $5,689.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A2005. MJQ CONCOURSE, INC. et al. v. ARCH SPECIALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY.

On February 23, 2015, the trial court entered two orders granting partial

summary judgment in favor of defendant Arch Specialty Insurance Company in this

declaratory judgment action. On March 30, 2015, co-defendants MJQ Concourse,

Inc., Benjamin Rhoades, Chad Phillips, and Armando Celentano filed a notice of

appeal to this Court.

1

 We lack jurisdiction.

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the

appealable order. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of

appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Perlman

v. Perlman, 318 Ga. App. 731, 739 (4) (734 SE2d 560) (2012); GMC Group v.

HarscoCorp., 293 Ga. App. 707 (667 SE2d 916) (2008). Because the appellantsfiled

their notice of appeal 35 days after entry of the ordersthey wish to appeal, this appeal

is untimely. It is therefore DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 The notice of appeal was signed on March 19, 2015, but – for reasonsthat are

not clear from the record – was notstamped “filed” until March 30, 2015. Appellants

also filed an amended notice of appeal on March 30, 2015.

07/09/2015

July 09, 2015
Department of the Treasury Quarterly FOIA Report

Fiscal Year 2023, Quarter Q4

1. Ten Oldest Pending Requests: 10

2. Ten Oldest Requests Closed: 1

3. Agency Component Abbreviations

Component 

Abbreviation Component Name

DO Departmental Offices

TTB Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

BEP Bureau of Engraving and Printing

OCC Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

FinCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

Fiscal Service Bureau of the Fiscal Service

MINT United States Mint

TIGTA Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

IRS Internal Revenue Service - Headquarters Office

Agency / 

Component

Number of requests 

backlogged

Number of requests 

processed

Number of requests 

received

DO 1392 197 261
TTB

6 21 34

BEP 19 16 26

OCC 17 430 426

FinCEN 15 82 68

Fiscal Service7 120 118

MINT 119 14 42

TIGTA2 112 92

IRS 889 1807 749
#### BATES et al. v. BATES et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 1, 1950.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 9, 1951.

Napier & Napier, C. W. Napier and C. W. Napier, Jr., Hazard, for appellants.

John Chris Cornett, Clark Pratt, Hind-man, for appellees.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

In 1908 T. G. Bates conveyed a half acre of land to the trustees of a public school for the recited consideration of $15. The deed contained this provision: “T. G. Bates is to have the land at the same price when it ceases to be public property as school house property.” Otherwise, a fee simple title was conveyed.

In 1910 T. G. Bates conveyed 500 acres to his sons W. J. Bates and J. W. Bates. It included the school lot. In 1925 T. G. Bates joined his two sons in conveying the 500 acres to C. B. Bates. No mention was made in either deed to the fact that the school lot had theretofore been conveyed out of the tract. About .the year 1947 the half acre ceased to be used for public school purposes. J. W. and W. J. Bates gave notice to the Knott County Board of Education of their election to repurchase the school lot and tendered the recited consideration of $15. It was refused. The right to acquire the property was denied, and the Bateses sued to enforce the provision. The lot had been taken for a railroad right-of-way, and the railroad company and the construction company were made parties to the suit and damages for trespass were asked of them. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the petition on the ground that whatever interest T. G. Bates had, “reversionary or otherwise,” had been conveyed by his deeds.

The contention of the appellants, J. W. Bates and W. J. Bates of a right to repurchase the lot for $15 rests upon the idea that the provision was not a true reversion but a possibility of reverter, which is not alienable but is descendable. They sue as heirs of T. G. Bates.

We think the ruling was proper. We construe the option to have been personal to the grantor, T. G. Bates, and to have terminated with his death. But if it be regarded as unlimited as to the individual or to time for its exercise, as appellants argue, then the provision was void ab initio for it violated the rule against perpetuities or restraint on alienation. KRS 381.220; Maddox v. Keeler, 296 Ky. 440, 177 S.W.2d 568, 162 A.L.R. 578; Campbell v. Campbell, 313 Ky. 249, 230 S.W.2d 918.

The judgment is affirmed.
Case 3:22-cr-00221-K Document 41 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 75
(logo) pwc

  

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association (“Midland” or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all transactions serviced onthe *Enterprise!*Loan Management System (the “Platform”), as of December31, 2015 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), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Companyhas determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform.Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company'scompliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testingof selected servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. 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 Midland complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for the Platformis fairly stated,in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 25, 2016

 

 

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

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*