alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

ReferenceisherebymadetothatcertainPoolingandServicingAgreementdated as of July 1, 2015, by and among WELLSFARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGESECURITIES,INC.,as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION,as Master Servicer, RIALTOCAPITALADVISORS,LLC,asSpecialServicer,PENTALPHASURVEILLANCELLC,as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and asCustodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respectto Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-NXS2 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision,and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilledall of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe ReportingPeriod.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary2018.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00117-CV

IN RE CURTIS LEE SHEPPARD JR. RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of 

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, DAUPHINOT, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: April 7, 2011

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
Pending Future Action: $ 

Enter the Amount to Remain in the Treasury Suspense Account 

 

 

 

This transmission was initiated by: 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 

DISPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS FOR CURRENCY HELD IN TREASURY SUSPENSE ACCOUNT 

This form is used to initiate the final disposition of funds held in the Treasury Suspense Account. 

Please e-mail this form to the Internal Revenue Service Headquarters’ mailbox: HQ-W&F@ci.irs.gov 

Cash Receipt Number (entered by National Office/TEOAF): 

Seizure #: Forfeiture Date (if applicable) 

Enter the Amount of Funds Seized Under This Asset Number: $ 

Enter the Amount Previously Forfeited or Refunded: $ 

Enter the Amount Forfeited (Account Code _____________ (Entered by TEOAF)): $ 

Enter the Amounts to be Returned to Owner or 

 Other Third Parties (other than sharing agencies): 

Party #1: Amount: $ 

Party #2: Amount: $ 

Party #3: Amount: $ 

Please issue checks payable to the above-listed parties, and mail these checks to the 

Internal Revenue Service at the following address: 

Mail to: 

How Many Sharing Requests Were Filed in Regard to This Asset? 

Expenses (Complete only if equitable sharing request(s) has been filed): 

Case Related Expenses: $ 

Award Payments Made to Treasury Informants: $ 

Prior Reimbursements to Requesting Agency: $ 

Was a Cost Bond Filed In Regard to These Funds? Yes No 

Was the Cost Bond Deposited to the Treasury Suspense Account? Yes No 

If you answered “Yes” to BOTH of the above questions, you must complete the form titled 

Cost Bond Disposition Instructions.” 

Additional Instructions: TEOAF Use Only: 

SEIZURE#: ______________________________________________ 

FUND:___________________ COST CENTER:______________ 

FUNDS CENTER:__________ MATERIAL GROUP: _________ 

ORDER:__________________ AMOUNT:___________________ 

FUNCTIONAL AREA:_____________________________________ 

SIGNATURE: 

Name: AFC: 

Telephone Number: Date: 

HQ Approval & Date 

Form 2:Version 3.5 Revised October 2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00057-Z-BR

§

JORGE HERNANDEZ-QUINTANA (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

JORGE HERNANDEZ-QUINTANA (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th 

Cir. 1997), has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the 

Indictment. After cautioning and examining JORGE HERNANDEZ-QUINTANA (1) under oath concerning each of the 

subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense 

charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore 

recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that JORGE HERNANDEZ-QUINTANA (1) be adjudged guilty of 8 

U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1); and 6 U.S.C. §§ 202(3), 202(4), and 557 - ILLEGAL RE-ENTRY AFTER DEPORTATION

and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds 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.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find 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).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds 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.

Date: August 4, 2022

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00057-Z-BR Document 28 Filed 08/04/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 50
<page> EXHIBIT 32.02




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley
Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
?Report?), I, Lee Horwitz, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter
Management Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of 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
results of operations of the Partnership.









By:  /s/Lee Horwitz

Name:	   Lee Horwitz
Title	:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
		   the general partner of the Partnership

Date:	   November 14, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

TIMOTHY LEWIS SEIB

Plaintiff,

v.

ALF BACK OFFICE SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1200-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy Seib’s motion to dismiss his own 

complaint against Defendant ALF Back Office Services, LLC (“ALF”). [Doc. 21]. ALF 

does not oppose Seib’s motion to dismiss, but the parties disagree on whether the 

Court should dismiss Seib’s complaint with or without prejudice. After careful 

consideration, and for the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion and 

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this case.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless the voluntary dismissal 

notice or a different stipulation “states otherwise, the dismissal is without 

prejudice.”

1 The notice of dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits” when 

“the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or 

including the same claim.”2 Before filing this suit in federal court, Seib sued ALF in 

1 FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(a)(1)(B).

2 Id.

Case 3:22-cv-01200-X Document 29 Filed 07/24/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 175
Texas state court based on the same set of facts. The state court has not dismissed 

Seib’s case, so this order does not operate as a final adjudication under Rule 41.

3

ALF claims that “it has already spent considerable time and money litigating 

[Seib’s] multiple claims in two different lawsuits asserting that he was unlawfully 

terminated from his employment.”

4 Further, ALF “does not want to continue to have 

to spend money defending against the claims in the event [Seib] changes his position 

and the claims are re-filed.”

5 ALF’s circumstance is neither unique nor unfair. Rule 

41(a)(1)(B)—along with federal preclusion doctrine—provides adequate safeguards to 

protect ALF’s interests if Seib refiles these claims. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Seib’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Seib’s complaint. Each party shall bear its own costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2023.

___________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 Even if the state court had dismissed Seib’s case, ALF has failed to demonstrate that Seib 

raised the same claims in his state-court case. Compare Doc. 23 at 4 (stating that Seib’s state-court 

case alleges breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and requests a declaratory judgment); with 

Doc. 12 at 6–12 (alleging, in Seib’s live complaint, age and disability discrimination under federal and 

state law and retaliation under federal law). Because ALF hasn’t shown that the state and federal 

claims are duplicative, ALF’s contention that Seib abandoned some of those state-court claims does 

not trigger Rule 41 even if the Court viewed that abandonment as a voluntary dismissal.

4 Doc. 23 at 5.

5 Id.

Case 3:22-cv-01200-X Document 29 Filed 07/24/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 176
# Core Q1-10, 12-44

# Core Perf Q11 Trend

# Core Q1-10, 12-44 Trend

# Pandemic Phy. Present Q45

# Telework Q46 Trend

# Pandemic Supp. Q47 Trend

# Pandemic Ldrs Q48-53 Trend

# Pandemic Type Work Q54

# Pandemic Response Q55-57

# Demographics

# ASI
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D. C.
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKETNO. FAA-2015-2443 NAYELLI FIGUEROA FAA CASENO. 2014S0190129 Respondent Judge J.E. Sullivan

Section 13.217/Rule 26(t) Report Submitted by Complainant FAA1 :: -' _; :,_:sy-_-,

1. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(6) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), Complainant proposes the following discovery and motion schedule. 3. The parties will exchange the discovery disclosures required byRule 26(a)(1) by January 29, 2016. 4. The parties shall serve initial discovery requests by February 19, 2016. The parties have until March 25, 2016, to respondto initial discoveryrequests. 5. The parties shall serve follow-up discovery requests by April 8, 2016. The parties have until May 6, 2016, to respondto follow-up discoveryrequests. 6. Any objections to discovery requests must be made to the requesting party within two weeks ofthe discoveryrequest. 7. Dispositive motions must be filed by June 3, 2016. A response briefto any dispositive motion must be filed by July 1, 2016. A reply briefmust be filed by July 29, 2016. If oral

1 Counsel for Complainant contacted the office for Respondent's counsel January 5, 2016, January 8, 2016, and January 12, 2016, in order to work on ajoint scheduling order. Respondent's counsel was unavailable eachtime and did not respond to messages. Accordingly, Complainant is filing a non-joint Rule 26(1) discovery plan and the parties have not discussed settlement.

### argument is needed on a dispositive motion, oral argument will be August 24, 2016 from 10:30- 12:00 a.m. EasternTime. 8. Pretrial reports must be filed by September 9, 2016. 9. Complainant recommends a trial the week ofSeptember 26, 2016, in the Miami, Florida
area. Respectively submittedthis thirteenth day ofJanuary, 2016.

R M. Landers Counsel for ComplainantCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifythatthe foregoing Section 13.217/Rule 26(f) Report was sent as follows: original and one copy viaFederal Express to: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building- Suite 2Wl000
one copyviafacsimile and Federal Express to: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20, U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 facsimile: (202) 366-7536
Scott B. Bennett The BennettLaw Center 3377 SW 3rd Avenue Miami, FL 33145 facsimile: (305) 648-2256

# fLy~~**nERALDA.J~S** ProgramAnalyst 

# :JAN 1 3 2016 Dated
# Continuation of Emergency Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction

On November 14, 1994, by Executive Order 12938, I declared a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) and the means of delivering such weapons. Because the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency first declared on November 14, 1994, and extended on November 14, 1995, November 12, 1996, November 13, 1997, November 12, 1998, and November 10, 1999, 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 declared in Executive Order 12938.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. 00-29243

Billing code 3195-01-P
# Official Journal C 139I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 139I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6420 April 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 139I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6420 April 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2021/C 139 I/01 | Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/639, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/638 concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma | 1 |
| 2021/C 139 I/02 | Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma apply | 3 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2021/C 139 I/01

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/639, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/638 concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma

1

2021/C 139 I/02

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma apply

3

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 23.1

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-105083) of HepaLife Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries (a development stage company) ("the Company") of our report dated March 20, 2009, on our audits of the consolidated balance sheets of HepaLife Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for the years then ended, and for the period from October 21, 1997 (date of inception) to December 31, 2008.

 

 

 

 

/S/ PETERSON SULLIVAN LLP

Seattle, Washington

March 17, 2010

----
# Q1

# Q2

# Q3

# Q4

# Q5

# Q6

# Q7 a&b

# Q7 c

# Q7 d&e

# Q7 f

# Q7 g&h

# Q8

# Q9

# Q10

# Q11

# Q12

# Q13

# Q14

# Q15

# Q16
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



I, Charley Changmin Yoon, 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 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2015-B
(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 required
in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement 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 party: Citibank, N.A.



Date: March 15, 2018



| | By: | /s/ Charley Changmin Yoon                                    
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Name: Charley Changmin Yoon                                  
| |     | Title:  President and Secretary                              
| |     | (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 35 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 35

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas, in 1753, Josiah Hornblower, an English engineer who was an associate 
        and rival of James Watt, assembled the 1st functioning steam engine in 
        the Western Hemisphere in Belleville, New Jersey, to pump water from the 
        Schuyler copper mines;
Whereas, approximately 40 years after such assembly, the 1st steam engine made 
        in the United States was manufactured in a foundry in Belleville from 
        designs by Josiah Hornblower;
Whereas the designs were commissioned by Nicholas Roosevelt, who was the great-
        uncle of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt, to power the 
        Polacca, which was the 1st experimental steamboat in the United States;
Whereas the Polacca negotiated the Passaic River on October 21, 1798, which was 
        several years before Robert Fulton's boat, Clermont, sailed the Hudson 
        River;
Whereas historians herald the invention of the steam engine as the beginning of 
        the industrial revolution;
Whereas the presence of Josiah Hornblower in Belleville brought many of the 
        initiators of the industrial revolution in the United States to 
        Belleville;
Whereas such individuals included members of the Rutgers family, many of whom 
        are buried in the cemetery of the old Dutch Reformed Church in 
        Belleville; and
Whereas Belleville has a rightful claim to the title ``Birthplace of the 
        American Industrial Revolution'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That--
            (1) the Congress recognizes Belleville, New Jersey, as the 
        birthplace of the industrial revolution in the United States; 
        and
            (2) the President is authorized and requested to issue a 
        proclamation honoring Belleville as such birthplace.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 7, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.






103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 35

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing Belleville, New Jersey, as the birthplace of the industrial 
                    revolution in the United States.`
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 136022 & (53) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 136022 COA: 273057 Wayne CC: 05-010644-01 THOMAS H.C. COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED.

s0721 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 29, 2008

Clerk