alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WELLSFARGO

**CommercialMortgage Servicing**D1086-120, 12th Floor 550 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 

WellsFargo Bank, N.A 

**ANNUALSTATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

           Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as ofJuly 1, 2012, by and among UBS Commercial Mortgage SecuritizationCorp., as Depositor, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, CW Capital AssetManagement, LLC, asSpecial Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC, as Operating Advisor andU.S. Bank, National Associationas Trustee, Certificiate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian,with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2012-C2 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned inthe Agreement.            Pursuantto Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive VicePresident of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that: 

1.2.

Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"), and of itsperformance perthe Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision,and To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all ofits obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe ReportingPeriod. 

           INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as ofthe 13th dayofMarch 2014. 

      /s/ Daniel Bober     DanielBober ExecutiveVice President WellsFargo Bank
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 24 61

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Dav idCh ris ti an ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v. Lt. Dav idW ag ne r, Cap ta in ; Pe gg y W il li am s, In m at e Heal th Man ag er; Ro ry Sm ith; Bren t Bu sz ka ; Aar on Ham m es ; Ro be rt S ch ue rer; Lon ny Pul kr ab ek , She rif f ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa- Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Nov em

be r 28 , 20 12 Fi le d: Decem

be r 3, 2 01 2 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, BOW MAN, an d C OLLOTO N.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Dav id Ch ris ti an ap pe al s fro m th e or de r of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t gr an ti ng su m m ary 1 jud gm en t to th e de fen da nt s in hi s 42 U.S. C

. § 1 9 8 3 a ct io n. “ [A] ti m el y no ti ce of ap pe al is m an da to ry an d juri sd ic ti on al ,” Dies er v. Co nt ’l Cas

. Co ., 44 0 F.3 d 92 0, 92 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ), an d app el lant fai le d to fil e hi s no ti ce of ap pe al wit hi n th irt y da y s of th e en try of jud gm en t, se e Fed

. R. App

. P. 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A )

. Although appellant was i n c a r c erated when he f

iled this action, he was released m onths bef ore f iling his notice o f appeal, and he is theref

ore not entitled to the benef it of Rule 4(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (prison m ailbox rule). W e dism iss the appeal as untim ely and deny as m oot the pending m otion to supplem ent the record.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Ro be rt W
. Prat t, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1 Dis tri ctof I owa . -2

-
| **Nature of Operations and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies - Allowance for Loan Losses (Details)** | 12 Months Ended |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
||
| **Accounting Policies [Abstract]**                                                                            |            |
| Number of key element used in assessing the appropriateness of the allowance for loan losses                  | 3               |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Allowance for Loan Losses, Number Of Key Elements Applied to Determination Of Valuation Allowance
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**frme_AllowanceForLoanLossesNumberOfKeyElementsAppliedToDeterminationOfValuationAllowance**Namespace Prefix:**frme_**Data Type:**xbrli:integerItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_AccountingPoliciesAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
#### R. C. HENDERSON, Plaintiff In Error, v. C. A. HORN, Defendant in Error.

No. 10710.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 13, 1940.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1940.

Atlas Jones, of Uvalde, for plaintiff in error.

William J. Fuller, Jr., of Montgomery, Ala., for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without written opinion. Associated Indemnity Corporation et al. v. J. M. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7631

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LINO ZEPEDA GOMEZ, a/k/a Lino Zepada, a/k/a Lino S. Cepeda,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (7:01-cr-00069-F-1)

Submitted: May 3, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lino Zepeda Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lino Zepeda Gomez appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) based on Amendment 709. Because this 

amendment is not expressly listed in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 1B1.10(c) (2010), the district court lacked authority 

to apply the amendment retroactively. See United States v. 

Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 249 n.2 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Gomez, 

No. 7:01-cr-00069-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2010). 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.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

​

​

​

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-231247 on Form N-2 of WhiteHorse Finance, Inc. (the “Registration Statement”) of our report dated March 3, 2022 relating to the financial statements, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Form 10-K”), and to the report dated March 3, 2022, on the Senior Securities table of WhiteHorse Finance, Inc. attached as an exhibit to the Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to us under the headings “Senior Securities” in the Form 10-K and “Selected Consolidated Financial Data”, “Senior Securities” and “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Registration Statement.

​

​

/s/Crowe LLP

Crowe LLP

​

New York, New York

March 3, 2022

​

----
Exhibit 10.3
 PROMISSORY NOTE
 $245,754.00
    
    June 23, 2010
Green Bay, Wisconsin
 MCA Enterprises Brandon, Inc. Florida Wings Group, LLC
 Interest Rate
 Payments August August
 Prepayment
 Covenants
 Events of Default




---



##### 



Lenders Rights Midwest Edition of the Wall Street Journal
 Attorney Fees
 General Provisions
  2




---



##### 



MCA ENTERPRISES BRANDON, INC.By:
    /s/  T. Michael AnsleyIts: President STATE OF MICHIGAN
    
    )) ss.COUNTY OF OAKLAND
    
    )
 rd
  /s/ Diana KozarSignatureDiana KozarPrinted Name of Notary PublicMy Commission expires: July 31, 2015
  3
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 GT Solar International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Thomas M. Zarrella, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Date:
August 27, 2008

/s/THOMAS M. ZARRELLAThomas M. Zarrella
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GT Solar International, Inc. and will be retained by GT Solar International, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### H. C. SPEER & SONS COMPANY (E. L. Twing et al.), Plaintiffs in Error, v. G. I. WILLIAMS et al., Defendants in Error.

No. 1487-5754.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

July 22, 1931.

W. M. Harris, of Dallas, Lightfoot, Robertson & Scurlock, of Port Worth, Packard, Barnes & MeCaughey, of Chicago, Ill., and J. P. Anderson and E. B. Lewis, both of Center, for plaintiffs in error.

Todd & Pipkin, Jack M. Moore, and Oliver J. Todd, all of Beaumont, and Sanders & Sanders, J. M. Sanders, and E. H. Carter, all of Center, for defendants in error.

HARVEY, P. J.

The questions and issues involved in this case, though relating to bonds of a different road district of Shelby county, are the same as are involved in the case of Twing v. Rhodes (Tex. Com. App.) 41 S.W.(2d) 13, this day decided. The judgment of the trial court in this case, and that of the Court of Civil Appeals, are, in effect, the same as in that case.

We recommend that the judgment of the trial court in this ease, and that of the Court of Civil Appeals affirming same, be reversed, and that judgment be here rendered to the effect that the defendants in error take nothing by their suit.

CURETON, C. J.

Judgments of district court and Court of Civil Appeals, are both reversed, and judgments rendered for the plaintiffs in error, as recommended by the Commission of Appeals.
Exhibit 13.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Maxclean Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to her and his 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 Company.










Date: April 29, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22627]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 2, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 16, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 350 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-685, CP2024-694.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-22627 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EX-35.5
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.
One Belvedere Place, Suite 330
Mill Valley, California 94941


RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master
Servicer and Securities Administrator (in such capacity, "Wells Fargo"), hereby
certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2012 (the
"reporting period"):

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the reporting period and of its
performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A
hereto (the "Servicing Agreement(s)") has been made under my supervision; and

(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material
respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule B.


October 30, 2013

/s/ Julie Eichler
JULIE EICHLER
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(logo) Together we'll go far


(page)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


To: Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.

Schedule A

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2011, by and among
SEQUOIA RESIDENTIAL FUNDING, INC., as Depositor and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. as
Master Servicer and Securities Administrator and Christiana Trust, a division
of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB as Trustee relating to the Sequoia
Mortgage Trust 2012-3 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2012-3

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


(page)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


To: Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.

Schedule B

Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

Not applicable

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Exhibit 23.3**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: (1) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-132443) pertaining to the Ultra PetroleumCorp. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan, and  (2) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-89522) of Ultra Petroleum Corp.;of our reports dated February 26, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofUltra Petroleum Corp., Ultra Petroleum Corp. management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of Ultra Petroleum Corp., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2006.
Exhibit
35.2

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
BARCLAYS BANK PLC
BARCLAYS DRYROCK ISSUANCE TRUST



In connection with the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Barclays Dryrock Issuance Trust for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 (the “Report”), the undersigned,
a duly authorized officer of Barclays Bank PLC (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify and represent that:

1.       A
review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Services Agreement, dated as of July 31, 2012, by and between
Barclays Bank Delaware and the Servicer (the “Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been
made under my supervision.

2.       To
the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
has duly executed this Servicer Compliance Statement this 27th of March 2020.



| | BARCLAYS BANK PLC
| | -----------------
| |                  
| | By:
**Exhibit 15.2**

 

** **

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-196187 and 333-215215 on Form F-3 of our report datedApril 18, 2016 (April 24, 2017 as to the effects discussed in Note 4), relating to the consolidated financial statements and financialstatement schedules of Grupo Financiero Santander México, S.A.B. de C.V. appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F ofGrupo Financiero Santander México, S.A.B. de C.V. for the year ended December 31, 2016.

 

Galaz,Yamazaki, Ruiz Urquiza, S.C.

Memberof Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

 

 

 

/s/C.P.C. Erika Regalado García

C.P.C.Erika Regalado García

MexicoCity, México

 

April28, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       22678 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              1020799 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1304534 
<PP&E>                                    10611537 
<DEPRECIATION>                             1511048 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            10540812 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      2956863 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      1218 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  941543 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              10540812 
<SALES>                                   22733933 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          22741988 
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             15916496 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           6210169 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          938961 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (324346)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 96241 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (228105)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (228105)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Stanley Blitstein et al., Petitioners, against John C. Young, as Manager and Chief Building Inspector of the Town of Hempstead, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

January 14, 1958.

*Pincus, Passin S Leightner*for petitioners.

*John A. Morhous*for respondent.

Marcus Gr. Christ, J.

Petitioners own a frame building formerly used as a private dwelling in a residence B district. The property was rezoned to a business district on February 28,1956.

Petitioners now propose to put the building to a business use viz.: as an office and show room, for a home improvement company and they applied to the respondent town building inspector for two permits, one to construct a dormer in the rear roof of the building, and the other to erect a roof sign.

He denied their application and this article 78 proceeding has been instituted to compel issuance of the permits. Section 102 (g) of the Building Code is relied upon as calling for the denial. That section reads as follows: “ Change oe occupancy. No change of occupancy or use shall be made in the building-hereafter erected or altered, or in any part thereof, that is not consistent with the last issued certificate of occupancy for such building unless a permit is secured. In case of any existing *281buildings, no change of occupancy that would bring it under some special provision or law or ordinance, or duly authorized regulation, shall be made, unless the building inspector finds, upon inspection, that such building conforms to the provisions of law with respect to the proposed new occupancy and use, and issues a certificate of occupancy therefor.”

It will be observed that that section standing alone falls short of explaining the town’s position. The first sentence merely requires a permit without shedding any light on what is needed to get it. The second sentence does not help either unless we know the “ special provision ” presumably contained elsewhere, which will be violated by the new occupancy. Eight pages of quotations from the code are cited, many of which have very little to do with our problem, e.g., section 403, Height Restriction.

The parties have assumed that the requirement for slow-burning construction, for new buildings in the fire limits, apply to an alteration of an existing building. However, section 401 which defines the fire limits does not so provide. Subdivision (c) which covers alterations has definite limitations on height and also on expansion of existing buildings laterally, but it has no “ special provision ” to cover what the petitioners want to do here.

Therefore, there is no appropriate “special provision” to integrate into section 102 (g).

Signs are covered by article 10. of the Building Zone Ordinance. Signs erected in a business district in conformity with the provisions of section S-2.0 do not require a permit. No reason is advanced as to why petitioners should not comply with this article.

The application is granted as to the permit for the dormer alteration and denied as to the sign.

Settle order.