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

 

 

Wells Fargo CommercialMortgage Securities, Inc. 

375 PARK AVE FL 2

Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

NEW YORK, New York 10152-0002

 

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., CommercialMortgage  Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C29

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of June 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

 

 

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

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D16-4127

_____________________________

CHRIS MORGAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County.

Robert M. Foster, Judge.

February 6, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WOLF and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Robert Quentin Humphrey, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth A. Newman, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), imposed December 14, 1989.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5). No opinion. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Eiber, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 99.2


                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 LeCroy Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Raymond F.
Kunzmann , Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (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/ Raymond F. Kunzmann
-----------------------
Raymond F. Kunzmann
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2002
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            Joint Forces Staff College
                Joint Forces Staff College
        Search
                    Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                        Search
                Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                    Search
    Home

    Coronavirus

    About 
        Overview

    College Leadership

    College Chaplain

    Contact Information

    Denton Learning Center

    Employment

    History

    Institutional Research

    JFSC Faculty

    Women, Peace, and Security (WPS)

    Academics
    
        Accreditation

    Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    Joint and Combined Warfighting School (JCWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    JCWS Hybrid (JCWS-H)

    JCWS Satellite (JCWS-S)

    Joint Information School (JIS)
        
        C4I Division

    Information Division

    Joint Transition Course (JTC)

    International Fellows
        
        Incoming Fellows

    Programs

    Alumni

    Contact Us

    Senior Fellows Program

    Libraries

    Faculty Resources

    Students
    
        All Course Schedules

    Incoming Students

    NDU Academic Policies

    Security Manager/SSO

    Uniform Policy

    Registrar

    Media
    
        Campaigning Journals
        
        About Us

    Issues & Articles

    Submissions

    Masthead

    News

    Commentary  News Tag:
  Feb. 12, 2019 Multi-Domain Battle, 1781: the Lessons of Yorktown JFSC Student at the Joint and Combined Warfighting School, National Defense University during JPME-II published, "Multi-Domain Battle, 1781: the Lessons of Yorktown" online in War Room Army War College, 7 March 2019.
 DoD Link Disclaimer
   DoD Annual Performance Plans
   NDU FOIA RequestsDoD Privacy Policy
   DoD Plain Writing
   NDU System of Records NoticeDoD Open Government
   DoD Information Quality
   NDU Privacy PolicyDoD Privacy Program
   DoD Section 508
   NDU Privacy ProgramDoD No FEAR Act
   USA.gov
   NDU.edu Site Map
                    Joint Forces Staff College
   7800 Hampton Blvd.
   Norfolk, VA 23511-1702

   Contact JFSC

   Report JFSC Website Issues
   or Suggestion for Improvement

   SAPR Resources
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MYRA BROWN AND ALEXANDER

TAYLOR,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 4:22-cv-908-P

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

The Court recognizes the importance of this case and desires to 

resolve the dispute in an expeditious manner. Thus, the Court ordered 

the Parties to submit a Joint Report containing proposed deadlines

regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 6. 

Having reviewed the Parties Joint Status Report (ECF No. 16), the 

Court ORDERS that Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Preliminary Injunction shall be filed on or before October 19, 2022, and 

Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants Opposition shall be filed on or before 

October 20, 2022.

SO ORDERED on this 17th day of October 2022.

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00908-P Document 19 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 211
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CHARLES E. WATERS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1689

[ October 12, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Steven J. Levin , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 1977CF000177B

.

Charles E. Waters, Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, L EVINE and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 31.01 RULE 13(a)-14(a)/15(d)-14(a)
CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Harvey Beker, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Millburn Ridgefield Corporation,
the Managing Owner of The Millburn World Resource Trust (the "Trust"), certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Millburn World
Resource Trust;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and changes in trust
capital of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report;

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

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the Trust, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Trust's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the Trust's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Trust's most recent fiscal quarter
(the Trust's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Trust's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The Trust's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Trust's
auditors and the audit committee of the Trust's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Trust's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Trust's internal control over
financial reporting.

By:


/s/ Harvey Beker
--------------------------
Harvey Beker
Co-Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2006
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00504-CR

NO. 02-14-00505-CR

OSCAR AGUILERAFERNANDEZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NOS. 1374347D, 1384081D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Oscar Aguilerafernandez2pleaded guilty to aggravated assault

with a deadly weapon and assault on a family or household member in exchange 

for sentences of two years’ confinement and five years’ confinement, 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2Although appellant signed some of his paperwork using Aguilera as his 

last name, we use the last name set out on his judgments of conviction.
2

respectively, and then filed notices of appeal. On December 19, 2014, we 

notified appellant that the trial court’s certification of his right to appeal in each 

case stated that the cases were plea-bargain cases and that he had no right of 

appeal. We informed appellant that his appeals would be dismissed unless he or 

any party desiring to continue the appeals filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing them by December 29, 2014. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 

44.3. Having received no response, we dismiss the appeals. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

BONNIE SUDDERTH

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 5, 2015
**Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention**

**Quarterly Meeting, July 28th, 2014**

**Attendance List**

3
# C o m m e r c i a l R e c y c l i n g & S u r

f a c e D i s p o s a l F a c i l i t i e s

T h e f o l l o w i n g l i n k s c o n t a i n a l i s t o f a l l c o m m e r c i a l f a c i l i t i e s p e r m i t t e d b y t h e

R R C

. P e r m i t s a r e s e p a r a t e d a n d l i s t e d b y t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g R R C D i s t r i c t

. T h i s l i s t d o e s n o t i n c l u d e i n j e c t i o n / d i s p o s a l w e l l f a c i l i t i e s

.

D i s t r i c t 0 1

­ S a n A n t o n i o D i s t r i c t 7 B

­ A b i l e n e

D i s t r i c t 0 2

­ S a n A n t o n i o D i s t r i c t 7 C

­ S a n A n g e l o

D i s t r i c t 0 3

­ H o u s t o n D i s t r i c t 0 8

­ M i d l a n d

D i s t r i c t 0 4

­ C o r p u s C h r i s t i D i s t r i c t 8 A

­ M i d l a n d

D i s t r i c t 0 5

­ K i l g o r

e D i s t r i c t 0 9

­ W i c h i t a F a l l s

D i s t r i c t 0 6

­ K i l g o r

e D i s t r i c t 1 0

­ P a m p a

M o b i l e R e c y c l i n g P e r m i t s

L a s t U p d a t e d : 7 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 1 0 : 3 5 : 5 5 P M
#### MAXEY v. STATE.

No. 21196.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 20, 1940.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1940.

M. Neal Smith, of Longview, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged upon indictment for the offense of unlawfully and knowingly transporting motor fuel and gasoline upon which a tax is required to be paid under a false manifest. The jury found him guilty and returned into court the following verdict: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment and assess his punishment at One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) fine and six months in the Gregg County jail and we further find that the defendant has never before been convicted of a felony in this state or in any other state, and we recommend to the Court that the Jail sentence only against the defendant in this case be suspended during the good behavior of the defendant.”

The appellant had not asked for a suspended sentence. .The court was without power or authority of law to enter a judgment of conviction embracing the terms of the jury’s verdict. In compliance therewith, the trial court, undertook to do so, decreeing that appellant should pay the fine of $100 and that the imprisonment for six months should be suspended.

This judgment, for the reason stated, is void. The cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

On State’s Motion. For Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

In the State’s motion for rehearing it is pointed out that we were in error in stating in our original opinion that appellant made no application for a suspended sentence. It *576appears from the record that an application for a suspended sentence was timely filed and submitted to the jury in the charge of the court.

The state contends that the jury were warranted in recommending that sentence be suspended as to that part of the punishment relating to the confinement of the appellant in jail for a term of six months, and in withholding such a recommendation as to the fine they assessed. We are unable to agree with this contention. The right to have the sentence suspended is given in our statutes relating to the subject. See Article *776,*C.C.P. We know of no statute authorizing the sentence in a felony case to be suspended as to part of the punishment. The present prosecution was for a felony, notwithstanding that part of the penalty assessed was a fine. There being no authority in law authorizing the procedure disclosed by the record herein, we are constrained to hold the verdict of the jury and the judgment based thereon to be void.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

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.
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 Humana Trans Services Holding Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I,
John P. Daly, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 and 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.


John P. Daly
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 24, 2004


                                       16
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Eonorabl8 B, 1. MoK8o 

County Auditor 

Edlnburg, T8xea 

Dear Sir: 

In yoour letter of 

opinion aa to whether a CO 

be stamped under Artlalo 

order to bs rsoorded. A 

traot ia merely an ordin 

land for a period 

payment8 to be ma 

n0 lien Or any na 

your letter, ths conrental or a pi808 or 

the periodio rental 

property, and in which 

obliga 

ahanfo 

traot 

or re 

SXCSP 

ex upon "a11 not88 end 

8, deed Of trust, meconditional sslae oonatur8 whioh ar8 filed 

County Clerk,"with certain 

eee8~Lwnts are not rp8olrloally named 

to ths tar, if they ar?~ to be tex8d it 

lau38 18rying th8 tax upon "all fnstrumenta 

1 to those 8p8Oiiioally named. HOW8v8r, 

amd ar8 thOEl8 whtoh ar8 88CUrttiV8 Of 

Lease oontraota 88 auoh, containing 

& a lien or some eharactsr or seourlty 

payments, are not similar to any or the4 lnstrumanta ep8oiiioally named in the hct, in our opinion. In 

this conneotion you will note that the statute doer not l8Ty 

the tax upon lnetrrupente whioh merely desoribe an obligation 

but the tax is dU8 Only if the t8nd8r8a inetlXm8nt OeCUr8S 

, 
Honorable B. B. YOK8@, Pago a 

the obligrtion. The 18rro ooEtr6ot desoribrd by you nerd not 

b8 stamp84 if our understanding of its content&i aa above set 

out ie oorrbot. 

Fe ham oonridarsd th8 possibl8 errrot or Artfcl.8 

52EE and 5238, V8mon*e Clril Ltatuter, giving landlord'8 

lllsil8. It th8rs 18 suoh a lien in the yrrs8nt oas8, it is by 

virtue or rrt8tut.r. The 18aS8 agr883l8Zit l lidOnO80 W&O obllgatlon. ‘rh8 Statute prOYid8s a8cUrity for much obli.:atlon. 

The fact that a landlmd'a lion i%q 8xirt to a80Ufe the psyDi8Xt or the rental obllgatlon dO8s not, in our oplnlon, rrgulr8 

a atamping or ttm oootraot. 

Yours v8rr truly 

; ‘2, 1940 A'TTCXEY OEXQ?nL GP TEX;rS 

/ 

-. 

Assistant
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 5/9/2012

Form REP-702

Rev. 0, 4/2012

Sample Number: 122018-001 Date Collected: 05/02/2012 08:15 Date Received: 5/3/2012

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 1.2 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 05/08/2012 15:22 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 122018-002 Date Collected: 05/02/2012 08:15 Date Received: 5/3/2012

2nd Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 10.4 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 05/08/2012 15:27 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 122018-003 Date Collected: 05/02/2012 08:15 Date Received: 5/3/2012

1st Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 311 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 05/08/2012 15:32 EPA 200.8

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 122018 Page 1 of 1
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 3 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

vs.

JOSE GOMEZ-GOMEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 98-4156

(D.C. No. 98-CR-89-W)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Gomez-Gomez appeals his sentence after being convicted by a jury of

reentering the United States after being deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

The district court increased his offense level by sixteen levels, pursuant to USSG

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), because it found that he was previously deported after an

aggravated felony conviction. Mr. Gomez-Gomez argues for the first time on
- 2 -

appeal that both convictions that the court relied upon were misdemeanors rather

than felonies. His counsel, believing the appeal to be without merit, has filed an

Anders brief, see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), and requested

permission to withdraw. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18

U.S.C. § 1342(a). We grant counsel’s request and affirm.

The district court’s determination that Mr. Gomez-Gomez was convicted of 

two felonies is a factual determination which we review for clear error, but we

review the court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines de novo. See United

States v. Wiseman, No. 97-2301, 1999 WL 190553, at *21 (10th Cir. Apr. 5,

1999). The addendum to the presentence report indicates that for both offenses,

Mr. Gomez-Gomez “was allowed the privilege of a reduction to a misdemeanor if

he completed probation successfully.” V R. Addendum at 1. However, because

Mr. Gomez-Gomez was subsequently deported, the offenses were not reduced to

misdemeanors. See id. Mr. Gomez-Gomez offers nothing to contradict these

findings, and thus we conclude that the district court did not err in increasing his

offense level pursuant to USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is 

not warranted. NRS 34.160; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Gibbons 

Piek.QA J. 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge 

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas 

De Castroverde Law Group 

Parker & Edwards 

Hand & Sullivan, LLC 

Snow, Christensen & Martineau 

Daehnke Stevens, LLP 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 4..t.