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

                                Sholl selected as UT-ORII executive director                            

                                Dealing with stress in large-scale additive manufacturing                            

                                Dilling named associate laboratory director for neutron sciences                             

## Filter News

### News Type

            - News Releases(64)
            - Story Tips(46)

### Date

            - (-)2005
            - 2024
            - 2023
            - 2022
            - 2021
            - 2020
            - 2019
            - 2018
            - 2017
            - 2016
            - 2015
            - 2014
            - 2013
            - 2012
            - 2011
            - 2010
            - 2009
            - 2008
            - 2007
            - 2006
            - 2004
            - 2003
            - 2002
            - 2001
            - 2000
            - 1999
            - 1998
            - 1997
            - 1996
            - 1995
            - 1994

## Media Contacts

David  Keim

keimdm@ornl.gov

865.576.9122

Morgan  McCorkle

mccorkleml@ornl.gov

865.574.7308

Sara  Shoemaker

shoemakerms@ornl.gov

865.576.9219

## Connect with ORNL

**

**

**

**

**

**

## Get ORNL News

Subscribe

## ORNL's thin film lithium technology may power Christmas of the future

December 21, 2005

## Environment - Operation cleaner fuels

December 13, 2005

## Wireless - Pushing the boundaries

December 13, 2005

## Computing - Bandwidth challenge champs

December 13, 2005

## Pennycook earns top honor during ORNL Awards Night

December 9, 2005

## State Lego Tournament is Saturday in Cookeville

December 6, 2005

## ORNL scientists looking at nature in a new way

November 30, 2005

## UT-Battelle provides $50,000 grant to Second Harvest

November 21, 2005

## Energy - Better buildings

November 14, 2005

## Environment - Carbon and climate

November 14, 2005

### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
- …
-  Next page» 
-  Last pageLast » 

All ORNL News >
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2012, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Custodian, Certificate Administrator, Certifiate Registrar and Authenticating Agent, Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Trust Advisor and U.S. Bank, National Association as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2012-C6 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Atlas Resources Public 17-2007 (A) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            August
      12, 2008
EXHIBIT
31





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





I, Judson
Bibb, certify that:





(1)           I
have reviewed this quarterly report of Bibb Corporation;





(2)           Based
on my knowledge, this 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
report;





(3)           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of Bibb Corporation as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;





(4)           Bibb
Corporation's other certifying officer(s) 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)):





(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 Bibb Corporation, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)           Evaluated
the effectiveness of Bibb Corporation's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this 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 Bibb Corporation's internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during Bibb Corporation's most recent fiscal quarter
(Bibb Corporation's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, Bibb Corporation's internal control over financial reporting;
and





(5)           Bibb
Corporation's other certifying officer(s) and I have  disclosed, based
on our  most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to Bibb Corporation's auditors and the audit committee of Bibb
Corporation'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 Bibb Corporation'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 Bibb Corporation's internal control over financial
reporting.








Dated:  May
9,
2009                                                                              BIBB CORPORATION





/s/
Judson Bibb


By:
Judson Bibb, President,


Chief
Executive Officer and Director
***pwc***

****

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

****

To

****

the

Board of Directors of Bank of America, National Association: 

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Assessment Regarding
Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria (the "Compliance Statement"), that Bank of America, National Association (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB in connection with the asset-backed securities
transactions listed in Appendix B to the Compliance Statement,  involving commercial mortgage loan transactions that involved an offer or sale of asset-backed securities that were required to be registered on or after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Platform"), as of the dates listed in Appendix B to the Compliance Statement and for the
periods then ended (the "Reporting Period"), excluding the criteria which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by them with respect to the Platform, as indicated in Appendix A to the Compliance Statement.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation 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 and performing such
other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed securities transactions that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected
transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may
have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company 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 servicingcriteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Bank of America, National Association complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the Reporting Period for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP February 28, 2014  

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 214 N. Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202*

*T: (704) 344*
***-7500, *

***F:  (704) 344 4100,*

***www.pwc.com/us*

**
#### McDOW v. STATE.

No. 15083.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 23, 1932.

Earl M. Greer, of Wills Point, for appellant.

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

MORROW, P. J.

Unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The dwelling and .barn of the appellant were searched under the authority of a search warrant, and about seventy bottles of beer w;ere found. Some of the witnesses called the beer "home-brew.” However, each of them testified to having tasted and drunk some of the liquid, and said that it was intoxicating. The liquid seized was exhibited at the trial.

There are no exceptions to the charge of the court.

The first bill of exception complains of the overruling of the motion for new trial. The motion objects to the introduction of testimony and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. The ruling of the court to which reference is made in the motion for new trial is embraced in certain bills of exception.

Bill No. 2 complains that the automobile belonging to Wiley Bullard was searched, and that certain empty beer bottles were found therein. The bill is incomplete in failing to set out the surrounding facts to enable this court to determine whether it has merit or not. The complaint is that a search was made of the car belonging to Wiley Bullard in which the appellant was riding.' Prom the statement of facts, it appears that the car was searched upon the arrest of the appellant and his companions because they were “cutting up” and were intoxicated.

Bill No. 3 presents the same matter as that contained in bill No. 2.

Bill No. 4 challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon the ground that the liquid was not shown to have been intoxicating. This is based upon the testimony of some of the witnesses who called the liquid “home-brew,” and because there was no examination of the liquid by a chemist to show its alcoholic contents. The witnesses testified that the liquid was intoxicating, and also testified to sufficient facts showing knowledge of the liquor. Under such circumstances, it is not necessary that the state prove the alcoholic contents of the liquid. The sufficiency of the testimony to justify the jury in concluding that the liquid possessed by the appellant was intoxicating is not open to question. This has been expressly held in many cases and text-books found collated in the case of Coleman v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 635, 18 S.W.(2d) 162 (see motion for rehearing).

The judgment is affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 25, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), ASTM International (“ASTM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM activities originating between May 12, 2024, and                           ( print page 83053)                        September 9, 2024, designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items, along with a brief description of each, is available at                     *http://www.astm.org.*

                    On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 17, 2024. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 21, 2024 (89 FR 52092).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2024-23654 Filed 10-11-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40194

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NYTESHIA RACHELE DIAH,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:11-CR-635-2

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nyteshia Rachele Diah appeals her guilty plea conviction of possession

with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, and her

sentence of 60 months of imprisonment. She argues that her guilty plea was not

knowing and voluntary because the district court failed to adequately explain

the nature of the charges against her, the potential results of perjuring herself,

and the sentence she would face if she violated the conditions of her supervised

release. The district court reviewed the charge against Diah at rearraignment,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 11, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 12-40194 Document: 00512017000 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2012
No. 12-40194

as did the Government. The district court also reviewed the written plea

agreement, which included a statement of the charge to which she was pleading

guilty, with Diah at rearraignment. Diah confirmed to the district court that she

understood the charge, and had discussed both the charge and the plea

agreement with her counsel. Diah has failed to show that the district court

clearly or obviously erred in finding that Diah understood the nature of the

charges against her. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009);

United States v. Reyna, 130 F.3d 104, 110 (5th Cir. 1997). She does not argue

that, but for the omission, she would not have pleaded guilty, and has shown no

plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

As to the district court’s failure to inform Diah of the Government’s right,

in a perjury proceeding, to use any statement she made against her, Diah does

not claim much less show a reasonable probability that this minor deviation

affected her decision to plead guilty. See United States v. Dominguez-Benitez,

542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Even if the district court erred in failing to advise Diah

that, if she violated the terms of her supervised release, she faced

reimprisonment for the entire term of supervised release without credit for time

served; see United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 560 (5th Cir. 2002); Diah does

not argue, much less show, that, but for this deviation, she would not have

pleaded guilty. See Puckett, 566 U.S. at 135. Diah has shown no plain error in

the district court’s conclusion that her guilty plea was knowing and the district

court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 12-40194 Document: 00512017000 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2012
Exhibit 10.4(d)

 

	

    	
Sydling Futures Management LLC

1285 Avenue of the Americas, 13th Floor

New York, NY 10019
    


 

June 26, 2014

 

Anthony Annunziato

AAA Capital Management Advisors, LTD

1300 Post Oak Blvd

Suite 350

Houston, TX 77056

 

Re:                             AAA Energy Opportunities Fund LLC

Sydling AAA Master Fund LLC

 

Dear Mr. Annunziato:

 

The Trading Advisory Agreements (the “Agreements”) among the above named funds, Sydling Futures Management LLC and AAA Capital Management Advisors, Ltd. expire June 30, 2014.  Please accept this letter as a renewal of the Agreements and all terms for an additional twelve months to expire on June 30, 2015.

 

Please acknowledge this renewal by signing below and returning to my attention at jennifer.magro@ubs.com.

 

 

Best regards,

 

	
/s/ Jennifer Magro
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Jennifer Magro
    	
 
    


 

 

ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

 

	
/s/ A. Anthony Annunziato
    	
 
    
	
Signature
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
A. Anthony Annunziato
    	
 
    
	
Print Name
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Bruce
Harmon, Interim Chief Financial Officer, of Winwheel Bullion, Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2009
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:
      July 21, 2009By:
      /s/
      Bruce HarmonInterim
      Chief Financial
Officer
#### EDMONDSON v. STATE.

No. 16047.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 1, 1933.

J. T. Spencer, of Waxahaehie, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is swindling; the punishment, a fine of $1.

 The property alleged to have been acquired by appellant is described in the complaint and information as one pair of shoes. The value of the shoes is not alleged. It is the rule in theft cases that when the value of the property affects the penalty it must be alleged. Branch’s Annotated Penal Code, § 2487; Sheppard v. State, 1 Tex. App. 522, 28 Am. Rep. 422; Pittman v. State, 14 Tex. App. 576; Ellison v. State, 25 Tex. App. 328, 8 S. W. 462. The rule in theft eases, as to alleging value, applies in swindling eases. Mathis v. State, 113 Tex. Cr. R. 164, 18 S.W.(2d) 920; Trigg v. State, 117 Tex. Cr. R. 536, 34 S.W.(2d) 878; Roberts v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 15, 13 S.W.(2d) 863. The defect is fundamental. Roberts v. State, supra.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

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.