alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ORDER Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS; §

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-00343

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, 

MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND 

ASSOCIATES, INC. JULIE 

HENDRICK AND ERIK HARRIS,

DEFENDANTS

§

§

§

§

§

§

ORDER

This Matter, having come before the Court on Defendant, McGaughey, Reber and 

Associates, Inc.’s Motion for Extension of Time to file an Original Answer to Defendant’s Original 

Complaint and it appearing that the Motion is agreed to and should be granted for good cause 

shown, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Defendant’s Motion for Extension of 

Time to file an Original Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint is granted and the Defendant

shall have until the 27th day of June, 2022 to file such Response.

ENTERED THIS ____ day of _________________, 2022.

_________________________________

JUDGE PRESIDING

Prepared in the offices of:

Michael R. Rake, Attorney at Law, PLLC

State Bar # 16487600

P.O. Box 1556, Lake Dallas, TX 75065

Tel. & Fax: 940-498-2103

E-mail: mrake1@mrakeattorney.com

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 17-1 Filed 05/31/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 142
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS §

§

VS. § ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-343-Y

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL §

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, ET AL. §

ORDER GRANTING AMENDED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER

Pending before the Court is the First Amended Motion for

Extension of Time to File Original Answer (doc. 17) filed by defendant

McGaughey, Reber and Associates, Inc. ("MRA").1 After review of the

motion, the Court concludes that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. 

MRA's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's complaint is EXTENDED until

June 30, 2022.

SIGNED June 2, 2022.

____________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Court did not receive a paper copy of or an electronic

proposed order with the motion. Counsel are reminded of this

Court's requirement that a paper copy of every motion be

transmitted to chambers upon electronic filing of the motion. 

See N.D. TEX. L. CIV. R. 5.1(b); ECF Admin. Procedures Manual at

3, ¶ II(C). Counsel are also reminded that all motions require an

electronic proposed order (emailed to

means_orders@txnd.uscourts.gov upon filing of a motion). See

N.D. TEX. L. CIV. R. 7.1(c); ECF Admin. Procedures Manual at 3, ¶

II(F). Provision of these items generally expedites the Court's

consideration of the motion to which they pertain; failure to

provide these items may result in the unfiling of the motion to

which they pertain. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 18 Filed 06/02/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 143
(logo) Rialto           CAPITAL  2015 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123) Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of March 1, 2015 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. as Trust Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-LC20, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-LC20 (WFCM 2015-LC20) The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the "Special Servicer") herein ce1tifies to the following: 1. All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer. 2. A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of March 31, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period") in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision. 3. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.  Certified by: /s/ Adam SingerAdam Singer, Managing Director Date: March 1, 2016
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220 

FOIA No.: 2012-08-244 

OASIS No.: NK-636089 

JUN 2 1 2013 

Mr. Justin McCarthy 

Judicial Watch 

425 Third Street, SW 

Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20024 

Re: North Korean Applications 

Dear Mr. McCarthy: 

This is our final response to your Freedom oflnformation Act (FOrA), 5 U.S.c. § 552, request 

dated August 22, 2012 to the Department ofthe Treasury (Treasury). You requested copies of 

all records of applications for licenses, both approved and rejected, to do business with North 

Korea during January 20, 2009 to August 22,2012. Treasury referred this matter to its Office of 

Foreign assets Control (OFAC) for processing. 

Please be aware that OF AC is' experiencing a substantial backlog of ForA requests that has 

adversely affected its response time. 

OFAC's search for documents responsive to your request produced a total of74 pages. We have 

determined that 67 pages are releasable in part with redactions made pursuant to FOIA 

exemptions (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(7)(C); seven pages are releasable in their entirety. 

Please note that OF AC has received a number of similar requests, all pertaining to businessrelated transactions in North Korea. We are releasing the same package of responsive 

documents to each requester in an effort to respond more efficiently to all. For this reason, you 

may find that you are receiving a broader range of records than you originally anticipated. 

You may appeal our final decision, in writing, within 35 days after the date of this letter to the 

Freedom ofInformation Act Appeal, Disclosure Services (DO), Department of the Treasury, 

Washington, DC 20220. The deciding official for OF AC appeals is the Director, Office of 

Foreign Assets Control. Please include with your letter of appeal a copy of this response letter. 

Please reference FOIA case number 2012-08-244 in all future correspondence. 

Copies of the FOIA and Treasury regulations are available at www.treasury.gov/foia. 

Provisions ofthe FOrA allow us to recover part of the cost of complying with your request. In 

this instance, no fees have been assessed. 
Mr. Justin McCarthy 

Page 2 

The Office of Oovernmen~ Information Services (OOIS) also mediates disputes between FOIA 

requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation .. If you are requesting 

access to your own records (which is considered a Privacy Act request), you should know that 

OGIS does not have the authority to handle requests made under the Privacy Act of 1974. 

If you wish to contact OOIS, you may email them at ogis@nara.gov or call 877-684-6448. 

Enclosed are information sheets pertaining to the FOIA exemptions and your right to an 

administrative appeal. 

Your request has been assigned FOIA No. 20J 2-08-244. Please reference this number in any 

future correspondence. You may contact our FOIA Requester Service Center at (202) 622-2500, 

option 3. 

Enclosures: 

l. Responsive Documents (74) pages 

2. FOIA Exemptions Sheet 

3. Administrative Appeal Rights
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 of Secured Digital Applications, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Patrick Soon-Hock Lim, Chief Executive Officer (principal
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, to
my knowledge:

         (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 financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Patrick Soon-Hock Lim

Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2008
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6204** 

DELMAH RAPHAEL POINDEXTER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:14

- cv - 00291

- RAJ

- TEM )

Submitted : June 26, 2015 Decided: July 1, 2015

Before KING and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Delmah Raphael Poindexter, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Delmah Raphael Poindexter seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not app ealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDan iel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petiti on states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Poindexter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabili ty, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DIS MISSED
Exhibit 31

Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC29 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Situs Holdings, LLC; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; CWCapital Asset Management LLC; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC.

Date:March 30, 2020

|  | /s/ Richard Simpson___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

CGCMT 2015-GC29 Certifications
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0579 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014-SW-020-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### BAILEY v. STATE.

No. 22371.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1943.

No attorney for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Aggravated assault is the offense; the - punishment, confinement in the county jail for 120 days.

The record before us is without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

VS, § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-227-K (02)

§

MALIK AQUILL WOODS §

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 

Plea Agreement and the Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty. Sentence will be imposed 

in accordance with the Court’s scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Signed August 7th, 2023.

_____________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00227-K Document 150 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 465
Exhibit 35.4

ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC29

The undersigned, David Co, a Director of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as the Trustee in its capacity as Custodian (a Certifying Servicer)
under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2015 (the Agreement), by and among, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., as Depositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as
Master Servicer and Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor, Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and Paying Agent, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, here by certifies in accordance with
Section 10.08 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicers activities from April 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the reporting period) and of such Certifying Servicers performance under the Agreement has been
made under such officers supervision and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | That, as to the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICASas Trustee in its capacity as Custodian/s/ David
CoBY: David CoTitle: DirectorDate: March 1, 2016
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

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

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliancefor COMM 2015-PC1 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of July 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"): 

 

(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 

 

/s/ Jeffery Coletta

Jeffrey Coletta 

Assistant Secretary 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LAWRENCE A. WERTS SR.,

Plaintiff,

VS.

LOUIS DEJOY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-0973-G-BH

)

)

)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court is of

the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct,

and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the court. By separate

judgment, the plaintiff’s claims against the unserved defendant will be DISMISSED

without prejudice sua sponte for failure to comply with FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).

SO ORDERED.

October 5, 2022.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-00973-G-BH Document 20 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 466