alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 34.3

GrantThornton

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



| |  |                                                                       
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Grant Thornton LLP                                                    
| |  | 1717 Main Street, Suite 1500                                          
| |  | Dallas, TX 75201-4667                                                 
| | 
| |  | T 214.561.2300                                                        
| |  | F 214.561.2370                                                        
| |  | GrantThornton,com
linkd.in/GrantThorntonUS
twitter.com/GrantThorntonUS

Board of Directors and Shareholders

Situs Holdings LLC

We have examined managements
assertion, included in the accompanying Report of Management on Compliance (Managements Assertion), that Situs Holdings LLC (the Company) complied with certain servicing criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of
Item 1122 of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB included in Exhibit A as of December 31, 2013 and for the period January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, with respect to the Companys
Operating or Trust Advisor Services performed over the deals listed in Appendix B (the Platform). Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on managements assertion about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Services and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination was not designed
to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Companys activities with respect to the Platform during the period covered by this report. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that Situs Holdings LLC complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of December 31, 2013
and for the period January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, for the Services is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ GrantThornton
LLP

Dallas, Texas

March 10, 2014
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7383

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN HENRY MCFADDEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. C. Weston Houck, Chief District

Judge. (CR-90-430, CA-92-1960-3-2-BC)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Henry McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) petition. Appellant's case was

referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

(1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We

accordingly dismiss the appeal. 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
#                                                     Cynthia J  Jenks                                            

###                         Associate Lab Director, Physical Sciences                    

## Contact

jenkscj@ornl.gov|865.574.4329

## Bio

Cynthia Jenks stewards ORNL's broad physical sciences portfolio, with particular emphases on quantum materials; structural materials and alloys; soft materials; nanoscience; nuclear and high energy physics: and applications of materials, physics, and chemistry in energy and security.

Jenks joined ORNL from Argonne National Laboratory, where she directed the Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division, overseeing the contributions of 17 research groups. Prior to her time at Argonne, Jenks served in a variety of roles at Ames Laboratory, including assistant director for scientific planning.

Jenks is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and her extensive multidisciplinary research has resulted in 123 publications. Her areas of expertise include surface structure and reactivity, surface structure-property relationships, catalysis, chemical conversions for sustainable energy and thin-film growth.

She holds a doctorate and master’s in physical chemistry as well as a master’s in chemical engineering, all from Columbia University in New York. Her bachelor’s in chemical engineering is from the University of California at Los Angeles.

## Publications

##   Lithium-Ion Battery Materials as Tunable, “Redox Non-Innocent” Catalyst Supports...

June, 2022

View All

## Key Links

LinkedIn

## Organizations

Physical Sciences Directorate

Oak Ridge National Laboratory				1 Bethel Valley Road				Oak Ridge, TN 37830

(+1) 865.576.7658

#### Connect With Us

                                  -  Partnerships 
                                  -  Visit 
                                  -  Contact 

#### News

                                  -  Newsroom 
                                  -  Newsletter Signup 
                                  -  Media Contacts 

#### Research

                                  -  Science Areas 
                                  -  User Facilities 
                                  -  Centers & Institutes 

#### Resources

                                  -  Internal Users 
                                  -  Directory 

                                  -  Privacy 
                                  -  Accessibility/508 
                                  -  Nondiscrimination/1557 
                                  -  Vulnerability Disclosure Program
Document



Exhibit 10.6(c)



 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE   
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. 
RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN
WHEREAS, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (the “Company”) is the Plan Sponsor of the Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Plan Section 7.01 the Plan may be amended at anytime; and
WHEREAS, on January 29, 2016, the Company filed an Application for Determination for Employee Benefit Plan (Form 5300) and in January 2017, in connection with such filing the Internal Revenue Service requested certain amendments to the Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service approved the Proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Plan and issued a favorable determination letter; and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in connection with the Plan’s receipt of a favorable determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


		
	1.
	A new section (v) shall be added to the end of Section 3.05(b) to read as follows:


“Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, in the event a portion of a Participant’s account is forfeited in accordance with Section 3.05(b), the portion of a Participant’s account attributable to the Company Stock Fund may only be forfeited after all other available assets under the Plan have been forfeited.”


		
	2.
	Section 4.03-A shall be amended to read as follows: 




“Participants having all or a portion of their Participant accounts invested in Company Stock in the ESOP may elect to receive a distribution of dividends paid on Company Stock that are allocated to their Participant accounts, paid to the ESOP first and then distributed no later than 90 days after the close of the Plan Year in which they were paid, or to reinvest such dividends in the ESOP pursuant to Section 404(k)(2)(A) of the Code, and the regulations thereunder.  Reinvested dividends shall be 100% vested.  Dividends paid on the portion of a Participant’s account attributable to Company Core Contributions, including any related investment earnings and losses, may only be reinvested to the extent Company Core Contributions and related earnings and losses are vested under Section 3.05(a) of the Plan.  A Participant who does not make an affirmative election under this Section 4.03-A shall be deemed to have elected to reinvest such dividends in the ESOP.  The Plan Administrator shall determine the procedure for making such election available to eligible Participants.”


		
	3.
	In all other respects the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.










IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused its Senior Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer to execute this Third Amendment to the Plan on this ________________ day of ___________2017.


AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.


By: ________________________________    
 Jennifer L. Grant 
 Senior Vice President- Chief Human Resources Officer
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b)




(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Yongye International, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:




The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 of the
Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Dated:
      October 19, 2009
                      By:
                      /s/
      Zishen WuZishen
      WuPresident
      and CEODated:
      October 19, 2009
                      By:
                      /s/
      Sam YuSam
      YuChief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.16

 


	
502 West Office Center Drive
   Fort Washington, PA 19034
   Phone: 215.461.2000
   Fax: 215.461.2006
   www.vitaepharma.com
    	
 
    	

    




 

September 4, 2013

 

Jeffrey Hatfield

 

Dear Jeff:

 

This letter amends your original Offer Letter dated February 25, 2004 as it pertains to your annual performance bonus. As approved by the Board of Directors, you will be eligible for an annual performance bonus targeted at 50% of your base salary, for any future bonus approved by the Board. Your actual payment may be higher or lower and will be calculated in accordance with your performance and the company’s performance versus objectives. Your payment will be payable in cash, stock or a combination of both, but in no case less than 50% of the actual bonus paid in cash. Any such Target Bonus (including the composition of such bonus), will be determined by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) based upon your performance, the Company’s performance and other factors. The determinations of the Board with respect to the Target Bonus, bonus composition and any Base Salary review shall be final and binding. You must be an active employee on March 15th of the year following the performance year to receive the bonus payment.

 

All allowances referred to in this letter will be considered normal income and will be subject to applicable state and federal income taxes.

 

You may indicate your agreement with this amendment of the Offer Letter by signing and dating the enclosed duplicate original of this letter agreement and returning it to me. This letter agreement may be executed in two counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but both of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

	
/s/ Donald   Hayden
    	
 
    
	
Donald Hayden
    	
 
    
	
Chairman
    	
 
    


 

I  have read and accept this amendment:

 

	
/s/ Jeffrey   Hatfield
    	
 
    
	
Jeffrey Hatfield
[No. 19099-4-III.

Division Three.

December 14, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Tracy William Brooks, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 99-1-01609-8, Michael W. Leavitt, J., entered January 28, 2000. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency 

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 11-307 Date: October 2011 

Subject: 2012 FEHB Withholdings and Contribution Rates 

The official Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program withholdings and contribution rates 

for 2012 are available in a PDF file format on the OPM web site at 

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp. These are the only rates agency payroll providers 

should use to update their systems and are effective for pay periods beginning after December 31, 

2011. 

The FEHB withholdings and contribution rates also are available in an ASCII and Excel file format. If 

you are a subscriber to "FINPAY" listserv, you will receive these files. If you are not a FINPAY 

subscriber and want these files, please email us at finance@opm.gov using “Want FEHB Rates” as the 

subject. We will email you the rate files. 

If you have questions about this letter, we recommend sending an email to finance@opm.gov. You 

also may call us on 202-606-0606. 

Emily Dean 

Associate Chief Financial Officer 

Financial Services
SHARE

# Getting to ORNL

              -  Virtual Tour 
              -  Getting to ORNL 
              -  Getting Around ORNL 
              -  Interactive Campus Map 
              -  Airport Information 
              -  Regional Information 

The driving directions and maps below will help you find your way to ORNL and around the city of Oak Ridge. Maps to help you get around the laboratory itself are located on the Getting Around ORNL page. If you have other questions about getting to the laboratory or getting around once you're here, please contact ORNL Visitor Services (ornlvisit@ornl.gov, 865.574.7199).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10554

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VICTOR MANUEL CHAVEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:00-CR-55-2

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

December 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Manuel Chavez (“Chavez”) appeals his conviction for 

possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and

abetting in violation 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B) and 18

U.S.C. § 2. Chavez argues that the district court erred in

assessing a two-point sentencing enhancement pursuant to United

States Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(1). Chavez primarily

argues that the two-point enhancement violates double jeopardy,

and he contends that his due process rights were violated because
No. 01-10554

-2-

he was not found guilty of possessing a firearm. Chavez contends

that although he possessed a firearm on September 12, 2000, he

pleaded guilty to the transaction which occurred on July 25,

2000, and there is no evidence that he possessed a firearm on

that day.

Section 2D1.1(b)(1) indicates that a defendant’s sentence

should be increased by two levels whenever, in a crime involving

the manufacture, import, export, trafficking, or possession of

drugs, the defendant possessed a dangerous weapon. “The

adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it

is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the

offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.3). The decision to

apply the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) is a

factual determination, reviewed for clear error. United States

v. Dixon, 132 F.3d 192, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

A sentencing court need not limit its attention to the

offense of conviction but may also increase a defendant’s

sentence pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(1) if it concludes that a firearm

was possessed in connection with unadjudicated offenses that

constitute relevant conduct, as defined by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. See

United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995); see

also United States v. Paulk, 917 F.2d 879, 883-84 (5th Cir.

1990). Therefore, the district court did not err in assessing

Chavez a two-point sentencing enhancement for possession of a

firearm. See United States v. Edwards, 911 F.2d 1031, 1033 (5th
No. 01-10554

-3-

Cir. 1990); see also Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 401-03

(1995). 

Chavez’ sentence and conviction are AFFIRMED.
##### 



(ENTERPRISE LOGO)
    
    Enterprise Products Partners L.P.P.O. Box 4324Houston, TX 77210(713) 381-6500
 Enterprise Products Partners Elects Creel President and CEO;
Fowler Elected Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 








---



##### 



www.enterprisegp.com
  Contacts: Randy Burkhalter, Investor Relations, (713) 381-6812 or (866) 230-0745
 Rick Rainey, Media Relations, (713) 381-3635
 ###
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00647-CR

EX PARTE Juan M. GARCIA

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 2, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On September 23, 2013, relator Juan M. Garcia filed an original pro se petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, seeking release from his current incarceration as a result of delay in the trial of the 

charge pending against him for felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 

This court, as an intermediate court of appeals, is not authorized to grant the relief 

requested. Pursuant to section 22.221(d) of the Texas Government Code, in civil matters, a court 

of appeals “may issue a writ of habeas corpus when it appears that the restraint of liberty is by 

virtue of an order, process, or commitment issued by a court or judge because of the violation of 

an order, judgment, or decree previously made, rendered, or entered by the court or judge in a civil 

case.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (West 2004). In criminal matters, however, an 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2012CR0797, styled The State of Texas v. Juan M. Garcia, pending in the 

227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr. presiding.

 
04-13-00647-CR

intermediate court of appeals has no original habeas corpus jurisdiction. Chavez v. State, 132 

S.W.3d 509, 510 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 

500 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, pet. ref’d); Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 1999, no pet.). In criminal proceedings, the courts authorized to issue writs of habeas 

corpus are the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, and county courts. See TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05 (West 2005). Therefore, the petition for writ of habeas is dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2 -
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, John Isbrandtsen, 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 Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-4 (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 statements required
    in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
    material respects; and

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

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
    Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, PHH Mortgage
    Corporation as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian and Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer and Securities Administrator.

    Dated:   March 29, 2013


    /s/ John Isbrandtsen
    Signature

    Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)