alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-34.6
(logo) Grant Thornton

Audit * Tax * Advisory

Grant Thornton LLP
201 South College Street
Suite 2500
Charlotte, NC 28244

T 704.632.3500

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Board of Directors

Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria ("Management's Report"), that Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. (the
"Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2013, except for those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A)
within Exhibit A. The transactions covered by this report are only those
transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust, senior trust or
operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the "Platform").
Reference Exhibit B for the transactions covered by this examination. 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 Platform and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting
the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities
related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our
testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, 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
servicing activities 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.


1


(page)


In our opinion, management's assertion that Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc.
complied with the applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit A and
Exhibit B as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013 for the Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


Charlotte, North Carolina

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

March 1, 2014


2
**Exhibit 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We herebyconsent to the use in this Registration Statement on AmendmentNo. 3 to Form S-1 (FileNo. 333-145835) of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. of our reports dated as indicated below,relating to the financial statements as indicated below, which appear in such RegistrationStatement: 1. Our report dated August 30, 2007 relating to the financial statements of WyomingInterstate Company, Ltd. as of December 31, 2005 and for each of the two years in theperiod ended December 31, 2005.  2. Our report dated February 28, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statementsof Colorado Interstate Gas Company as of December 31, 2005 and for each of the two yearsin the period ended December 31, 2005, and  3. Our report dated March 15, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements ofSouthern Natural Gas Company as of December 31, 2005 and for each of the two years in theperiod ended December 31, 2005.We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in such Registration Statement./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPHouston, Texas
NUMBER 13-11-00067-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ROBERT TORRES, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE.

On Appeal from the 117th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Robert Torres, attempts to appeal a conviction for driving while 

intoxicated. The trial court has certified that Athe defendant has waived the right of 

appeal.@ See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On April 27, 2011, this Court notified appellant=s counsel of the trial court=s 

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel=s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification.

On May 26, 2011, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel=s response 

does not establish: (1) that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect, or 

(2) that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be 

dismissed if the trial court=s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of 

appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this 

appeal is DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

9th day of June, 2011.
most_ex102.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 



AMENDMENT TO SECURITY AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO SECURITY AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), effective as of June 9, 2014, is made and entered into by and among MobileSmith, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Doron Roethler, as agent for the Investors (together with its successors and assigns in such capacity, the “Collateral Agent”) pursuant to that certain Security Agreement, dated November 14, 2007 (the “Security Agreement”), by and between the Company and the Collateral Agent. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Security Agreement.


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Collateral Agent desire to amend the Security Agreement to reflect that the security interests of the Investors hereunder will be subordinate to that security interest created pursuant to the terms of that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated as of June 9, 2014, by and between Comerica Bank (“Bank”) and the Company; and


 


WHEREAS, Section 8(d) of the Security Agreement provides that any provision of the Security Agreement may be amended with the written consent of the Company and the Collateral Agent.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


Section 1. Amendment to Security Agreement.


 


(a) Section 1 of  the Security Agreement is hereby amended by restating the definition of “Senior Obligations” as follows:


 


“Senior Obligations” means all indebtedness and obligations of the Company to Comerica Bank (“Bank”) evidenced by that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated as of June 9, 2014, by and between Bank and the Company and any amendment, restatement, modification, renewal, extension or refinance thereof.


 


Section 2. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts and by facsimile or other electronic transmission, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute but one and the same.


 


[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]


 




  





1











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered as of the date first above written.


 




	 	 
MOBILESMITH, INC.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Gleb Mikhailov	 
	 	 	Name: Gleb Mikhailov 	 
	 	 	Title: Chief Financial Officer	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 
Doron Roethler, as Collateral Agent

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
/s/ Doron Roethler

	 
	 	 	 
Name: Doron Roethler

	 







 


 


 


 


 


2
#                                                     Zakaria  Aboulbanine                                            

### 

## Contact

aboulbaninez@ornl.gov|865.576.4561

## Key Links

ORCID

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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano,

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 27, 2021

Order 

Clerk

January 27, 2021

162129(52) 

SPECTRUM HEALTH HOSPITALS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

MSC: 162129

v COA: 347553

Kent CC: 17-007661-NF FARM

BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, 

Defendant, 

and

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, 

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellee to file a response to 

the brief amicus curiae of the Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault is GRANTED. The 

response will be accepted for filing if submitted within 14 days of this order.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00012-CR

____________________

IN RE JOHN D. FAILS JR.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

Original Proceeding 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

In a petition for writ of mandamus, John D. Fails complains that he filed an 

application for writ of habeas corpus with the convicting court on October 7, 2013, 

but he has not received a copy of the State’s response to his application. Fails

states that he filed a motion to vacate his sentence on December 12, 2013. He 

argues that he is entitled to have his sentence vacated and to have the indictment 

dismissed with prejudice as a remedy for a due process violation because the State 

failed to send him a copy of its response and the district clerk failed to forward his 

habeas petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals. He asks this Court to vacate his 

sentence and dismiss the indictment. 
2

The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.3d 241, 243 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991). After a post-conviction habeas proceeding commences, the 

defendant’s complaints about the convicting court’s handling of the habeas petition 

must be presented to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Padieu v. Court of 

Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. 

proceeding); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist. 

2001, orig. proceeding) (“Should an applicant find it necessary to complain about 

an action or inaction of the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus 

relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.”). Fails has not shown that the trial 

court failed to act on a matter over which we have jurisdiction. See Padieu, 392 

S.W.3d at 117-18. We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.

PETITION DISMISSED.

 

 PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered February 12, 2014

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
# L_2011053EN.01006501.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 53/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/65

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 192/2011

of 25 February 2011

establishing special measures as regards the private storage aid for pigmeat laid down by Regulation (EU) No 68/2011

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (2), and in particular Article 23(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An examination of the situation has indicated a risk that there will be an excessively large number of applications for the private storage aid scheme for pigmeat introduced by Commission Regulation (EU) No 68/2011 of 28 January 2011 on fixing the amount of aid in advance for private storage of pigmeat (3). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An examination of the situation has indicated a risk that there will be an excessively large number of applications for the private storage aid scheme for pigmeat introduced by Commission Regulation (EU) No 68/2011 of 28 January 2011 on fixing the amount of aid in advance for private storage of pigmeat (3).

| (2) | Therefore, it is necessary to suspend application of the scheme established by Regulation (EU) No 68/2011 and reject the applications in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Therefore, it is necessary to suspend application of the scheme established by Regulation (EU) No 68/2011 and reject the applications in question.

| (3) | In order to avoid speculation, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In order to avoid speculation, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   Application of Regulation (EU) No 68/2011 is hereby suspended for the period 27 February 2011 to 4 March 2011. Applications to conclude contracts submitted during this period shall not be accepted.

2.   Applications submitted from 22 February 2011, whose acceptance would have been decided during the period referred to in paragraph 1, are hereby rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 February 2011.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 223, 21.8.2008, p. 3.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 26, 29.1.2011, p. 2.

3

---
Exhibit 10.23


 


SECOND
amendment to


amended
and restated


Limited
Liability Company Agreement 


FOR


BR-NPT
SPRINGING ENTITY, LLC,


A
DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY


 


This
SECOND Amendment to amended and restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (this “Second Amendment”) is made
as of the 2nd day of April, 2014, by BR-NORTH PARK TOWERS, LLC, as managing member (the “Manager”), for
itself and on behalf of the members set forth on Schedule A hereto (collectively, the “Members”).


 


WHEREAS, an Amended
and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement dated April 30, 2013, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Amended
and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (as so amended, the “LLC Agreement”) for BR-NPT Springing Entity,
LLC (the “Company”), was previously entered into by and among the Members and the Manager.


 


WHEREAS, the Company
on the date hereof has sold the Property to BRG North Park Towers, LLC (Delaware LLC) (“BRG”) in exchange for limited
partnership units totaling 3.5% of the limited partnership in Bluerock Residential Holdings, L.P. (Delaware LP) (“OP”),
the operating partnership of Bluerock Residential Growth REIT, Inc. (Maryland corporation) (“REIT”), pursuant to that
certain Contribution Agreement between REIT and the Company dated March 10, 2014.


 


WHEREAS, BRG has assumed
the Loan and the Company is no longer liable for same.


 


WHEREAS, the parties
hereto wish to amend the LLC Agreement as hereinafter provided.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the
parties hereto modify and amend the LLC Agreement, effective as of the date hereof, as follows:


 


1.          Section 2.03
of the LLC Agreement is hereby modified and amended to delete the second sentence thereof.


 


2.          Sections
7.05 (b), (c) and (e) of the LLC Agreement are deleted in their entirety.


 


3.          Section 9.01
of the LLC Agreement is deleted in its entirety.


 


4.          Section 9.03
of the LLC Agreement is deleted in its entirety.


 


5.          Section 11.01(e)
of the LLC Agreement is deleted in its entirety.


 


6.          This
Second Amendment is intended to be effective from and after the date set forth above.


 


[SIGNATURE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned has duly
executed this Second Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


 


	MANAGER:	BR-NORTH PARK TOWERS, LLC,
	 	a Delaware limited liability company
	 	 	 
	 	By:	Bluerock Real Estate, L.L.C.,
	 	 	a Delaware limited liability company,
	 	 	its manager
	 	 	 
	 	 	By: 	/s/ Jordan Ruddy
	 	 	 	Jordan Ruddy
	 	 	 	Authorized Signatory


 




    	2



    	 



    

 


SCHEDULE A


 


MEMBERS
#### STATE v. HOWE et ux.

No. 4562.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Feb. 17, 1936.

William McCraw, Atty. Gen., and Letch-er D. King, Asst. Atty. Gen., fór the State.

R. E. McKie, of San Marcos, for defendant in error.

MARTIN, Justice.

Condemnation proceedings for a public highway were instituted by plaintiff in error against defendants in_ error, under 'title 52, article 3264 et seq., R.S.1925. Special commissioners duly assessed damages and filed an award of same as provided by article 3264, supra. Objections thereto were timely filed by the state, to which Howe et ux., defendants in error, duly made and filed their answer. To this answer the state replied by first supplemental petition. It appears here that after the announcement of ready by both parties, and after a jury had been impaneled, plaintiff in error withdrew *488all pleadings by it filed, except its first supplemental petition. This left it without any cause of action pleaded and therefore without anything upon which a judgment could be based. Its supplemental petition consisted in most part of exceptions, and did not pretend to be any basis for a suit.

“In a host of cases it is asserted that a judgment must be supported by the pleading; if such support is lacking the judgment is fundamentally erroneous and void. * * * It would appear upon sound reason that a judgment rendered where no case has been stated, or attempted to be stated, is as much a judgment upon a matter coram non judice, whatever may be the jurisdiction of the court rendering it, as a judgment upon a case, however perfectly stated, before a court not authorized to hear and determine it. In such a case, as where the record affirmatively shows a want of jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter, the judgment ought, we think, to be treated as a nullity both on direct and collateral attack.” 25 Tex.Jur. pp. 474-477; Howe v. Keystone Pipe & Supply Co., 115 Tex. 158, 274 S.W. 563, 278 S.W. 177; Hart v. Hunter, 52 Tex.Civ.App. 75, 114 S.W. 882 (writ refused).

Without the above pleadings the county court was without jurisdiction to proceed, and its judgment herein was a nullity. Sinclair v. City of Dallas (Tex.Civ.App.) 44 S.W. (2d) 465, and numerous authorities there cited. There was in fact no cause of action left, and, if not, certainly no appeal-able one to this court.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3231 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3231

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to protect unpaid interns in the 
 Federal Government from workplace harassment and discrimination, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Intern Protection Act of 
2016''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 2302 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g)(1) All protections afforded to an employee under 
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of subsection (b)(1) shall be afforded, 
in the same manner and to the same extent, to an intern and an 
applicant for internship.
    ``(2) For purposes of the application of this subsection, a 
reference to an employee shall be considered a reference to an intern 
in--
            ``(A) section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 
        U.S.C. 2000e-16);
            ``(B) sections 12 and 15 of the Age Discrimination in 
        Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 631, 633a); and
            ``(C) section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
        U.S.C. 791).
    ``(3) In this subsection, the term `intern' means an individual who 
performs uncompensated voluntary service in an agency to earn credit 
awarded by an educational institution or to learn a trade or 
occupation.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3111(c)(1) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting ``section 2302(g) (relating to 
prohibited personnel practices),'' before ``chapter 81''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 11, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3231

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend title 5, United States Code, to protect unpaid interns in the 
 Federal Government from workplace harassment and discrimination, and 
                          for other purposes.
```