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

 

  |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Poolingand Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2015, by and among J.P. MorganChase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, asSpecial Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, andPentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C28 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (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 the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 50

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States allowing

the President to veto any item of appropriation or any provision in

any Act or joint resolution containing an item of appropriation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. STUMP introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States allowing the President to veto any item of appropriation or any provision in any Act or joint resolution

containing an item of appropriation.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
2

•HJ 50 IH

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The President may disapprove, in any

5 Act or joint resolution containing an item of appropria6 tion, any item of appropriation or any provision. If an Act

7 or joint resolution is approved by the President, any item

8 of appropriation or provision contained in the Act or joint

9 resolution that is not disapproved shall become law. The

10 President shall return, with his objections, any dis11 approved item of appropriation or provision to the House

12 in which the Act or joint resolution containing such item

13 or provision originated, and may group such disapproved

14 items or provisions for reconsideration by the Congress.

15 The Congress may reconsider any item of appropriation

16 or provision disapproved under this article in the manner

17 prescribed under section 7 of article I for Acts disapproved

18 by the President. The Congress may consider such dis19 approved items or provisions separately or as grouped by

20 the President upon return of the disapproved items, but

21 may not consider such disapproved items or provisions in

22 any other grouping.

23 ‘‘SECTION 2. This article shall take effect at noon on

24 the third day of January of the first odd-numbered year

25 beginning after the date of the ratification of this article.’’.
3

•HJ 50 IH

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

LUBBOCK DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

W22 NOV 2 I PH~:~, 

:Ji:PUTY CL£RH.{.1UJv. CASE NO. 5:22-CR-088-H-BQ-1 

!SAURO GONZALEZ-SOTELO 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

This case has been referred by the United States district judge to the undersigned 

for the taking of a guilty plea. The parties have consented to appear before a United States 

magistrate judge for these purposes. This Report and Recommendation on Plea is submitted 

to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). 

The defendant appeared with counsel before the undersigned United States 

magistrate judge, who addressed the defendant personally in open court and informed the 

defendant of, and determined that the defendant understood, the admonitions contained in 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The defendant pleaded guilty (under a written plea bargain agreement with the 

government) to Count One of the Superseding Indictment, charging defendant with a 

violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), 1326(b)(J), and 6 U.S.C. §§ 202(3), 202(4), and 557, that 

is, Illegal Reentry After Deportation. After examining Defendant under oath the 

undersigned magistrate judge finds the following: 

1. Defendant, upon advice of counsel, has consented orally and in writing 

to enter this guilty plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final 

approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge; 

Case 5:22-cr-00088-H-BQ Document 29 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 45
2. Defendant fully understands the nature of the charges (including each 

essential element of the offense(s) charged) and penalties; 

3. Defendant fully understands the terms of the plea agreement and plea 

agreement supplement; 

4. Defendant understands all constitutional and statutory rights and wishes 

to waive these rights, including the right to a trial by jury and the right 

to appear before a United States district judge; 

5. Defendant's plea is made freely and voluntarily; 

6. Defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; 

7. There is a factual basis for this plea; and 

8. The ends of justice are served by acceptance of the defendant's plea of 

guilty. 

Although I have conducted these proceedings and recommend acceptance of 

Defendant's plea of guilty, the United States district judge has the power to review my 

actions and possesses final decision-making authority in this proceeding. Thus, if 

Defendant has any objections to these findings or any other action of the undersigned, he 

is required to make those known to the United States district judge within fourteen (14) 

days of today. 

Based on the above, I recommend that Defendant's plea of guilty be accepted, that 

Defendant be adjudged guilty, and that sentence be imposed accordingly. 

Signed November 21, 2022. 

'JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:22-cr-00088-H-BQ Document 29 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 46
Reinstated; Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 5, 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14
- 12
- 00796
- CR LISA MICHELLE ESTRAD A , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________ NO. 14
- 12
- 00797
- CR EX PARTE LISA MI CHELLE ESTRADA

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1296827 & 1296 8 27
- A 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION In the appeal docketed under number 14

- 12

- 00796

- CR, appellant appeals from the order adjudicating her guilt for thef t and sentencing her to confinement for six months in state jail. In the appeal docketed under number 14

- 12

- 00797

- CR, appellant appeals from the denial of her pre

- trial application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure arti cle 11.072. See Kniatt v. State , 206 S.W.3d 657, 663

– 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (reaffirming the rule thatjurisdiction is established at the time the writ is filed and is not defeated by a subsequent adjudication of guilt). A written request to withdraw th e notice s of appeal, personally signed by appellant, has been filed with this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an opinion in these appeals , we grant appellant’s request. Accordingly, we order the appeal s dismissed. We d irect the clerk of the court to issue the mandate s of the court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Busby

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

2
# Official Journal C 26/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2014.026.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 26 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5729 January 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2014.026.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 26

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5729 January 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 026/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7131 — Compal Electronics/Toshiba Television Central Europe) (1) | 1 |
| 2014/C 026/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7133 — Investindustrial/KKR/Resort Holdings) (1) | 1 |
| 2014/C 026/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6924 — Refresco Group/Pride Foods) (1) | 2 |
| 2014/C 026/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7007 — RZB/RBSPK/RWBB) (1) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 026/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7131 — Compal Electronics/Toshiba Television Central Europe) (1)

1

2014/C 026/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7133 — Investindustrial/KKR/Resort Holdings) (1)

1

2014/C 026/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6924 — Refresco Group/Pride Foods) (1)

2

2014/C 026/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7007 — RZB/RBSPK/RWBB) (1)

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2014/C 026/05 | Notice for the attention of the persons to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/423/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2014/40/CFSP, and Council Regulation (EC) No 1184/2005 concerning restrictive measures against Sudan and South Sudan apply | 3 |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 026/06 | Euro exchange rates | 5 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2014/C 026/05

Notice for the attention of the persons to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/423/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2014/40/CFSP, and Council Regulation (EC) No 1184/2005 concerning restrictive measures against Sudan and South Sudan apply

3

European Commission

2014/C 026/06

Euro exchange rates

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 026/07 | Call for proposals — EACEA/05/14 — Erasmus+ programme — Civil society cooperation | 6 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2014/C 026/07

Call for proposals — EACEA/05/14 — Erasmus+ programme — Civil society cooperation

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          10,437,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,009,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,400,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                              0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          33,816,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            33,909,000
<LOANS>                                        183,388,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,971,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 249,759,000
<DEPOSITS>                                     224,494,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                             0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,788,230
<LONG-TERM>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         4,816,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,662,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 249,759,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,808,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,681,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   244,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                14,733,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,435,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,287,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      470,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                       0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,805,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,466,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,114,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,114,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.98
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        5.74
<LOANS-NON>                                        731,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                             0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,424,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       99,000
<RECOVERIES>                                       176,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,971,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,971,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6309

RICHARD A. MASSENBURG,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, Greensville Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-95-857)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Massenburg, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a

magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(l) (West 1993).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition.* We have reviewed

the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.

Massenburg v. Warden, No. CA-95-857 (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 1996). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                        2,112,863
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        4,498,782
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                      0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                      0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  33,152,210
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          420,151
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            420,151
<LOANS>                                     210,940,001
<ALLOWANCE>                                   1,876,987
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              256,745,588
<DEPOSITS>                                  141,500,072
<SHORT-TERM>                                 51,854,439
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           1,443,850
<LONG-TERM>                                  38,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         26,407
<OTHER-SE>                                   25,920,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              256,745,588
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               4,234,434
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               554,295
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 52,190
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              4,840,919
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            1,677,744
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            2,912,550
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         1,928,550
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   191,250
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                    0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               1,169,213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 797,402
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      518,974
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    518,974
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     3.14
<LOANS-NON>                                   1,875,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                          0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 25,800
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              1,766,700
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    94,000
<RECOVERIES>                                     13,100
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             1,876,987
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            714,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       1,162,987



</TABLE>
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

September 30, 2023

2023 PREEMPTION REPORT

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE

The Federal Insurance Office (FIO) issues this report on actions taken regarding preemption of 

inconsistent state insurance measures, pursuant to the Federal Insurance Office Act of 2010.1

During the fiscal year ending September 30, 2023, FIO did not take any action regarding the 

preemption of any inconsistent state insurance measure.

Pursuant to Article 9, Paragraph 4 of the Covered Agreements with the European Union and with 

the United Kingdom, and in accord with 31 U.S.C. § 313(f), during a period beginning not later 

than March 1, 2021, and concluding on or before September 1, 2022, FIO analyzed

State measures adopting and implementing the 2019 amendments to the NAIC Credit for 

Reinsurance Model Law and Regulation and determined that as of September 1, 2022, no such State 

measures were inconsistent with the U.S.-EU and U.S.-UK Covered Agreements. FIO continues to 

monitor State insurance measures to ensure consistency with the Covered Agreements on an 

ongoing basis.

1 31 U.S.C. § 313(n)(l).