alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Helaine M. Kaplan,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the COMM2012-CCRE4 Mortgage Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asSpecial Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Custodian, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as OperatingAdvisor, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing FunctionParticipant, National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer for the Emerald SquareMall Mortgage Loan, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, as Special Servicer for the Emerald Square Mall Mortgage Loan,U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the Emerald Square Mall MortgageLoan, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor for the Emerald Square MallMortgage Loan, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as ServicingFunction Participant for the Emerald Square Mall Mortgage Loan, and NationalTax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant for the Emerald Square MallMortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 27, 2020

 

 

/s/ Helaine M. Kaplan

 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Exhibit 32.1      CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    I, Marinus Jellema, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Software, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008 (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 78 o(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:  August 12, 2008  /s/ Marinus Jellema Marinus Jellema, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Pacific Software, Inc. and will be retained by Pacific Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Nitin Karnik, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge, IN Media Corporations Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2014 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   Date: May 15, 2014By:/s/ Nitin KarnikName:Nitin KarnikTitle:Chief Executive Officer
#### Botna Valley State Bank, Appellee, v. J. W. Cary et al., Appellants. Farmers National Bank, Appellee, v. J. W. Cary et al., Appellants.

April 3, 1928.

*914
      *D. E. Whitfield*and *W. S. Lewis,*for Malvern National Bank and Fred Durbin, Garnishees, appellants.

*C. E. Deem,*for appellees.

Per Curiam.

— The judgment in this casé was entered September 16, 1927. The appeal was perfected October 18, 1927. The abstract was filed in this court February 23, 1928. A motion is filed to affirm or dismiss on the ground that the abstract was not filed in time.

The statute, Section 12848, Code of 1927, provides that, if the abstract is not filed within 120 days after the appeal is taken and perfected, unless further time is fixed by the court or judge, upon a proper showing the appeal “upon motion shall be dismissed, or the judgment or order affirmed.” When the time is computed, under the statute, it appears that the abstract was not filed in this court within 120 days after the appeal was taken and perfected.

The appellant contends that this provision of the statute is not applicable, by reason of the fact that the attorney for the appellees accepted “due, legal, and timely service” of the abstract. This acceptance was not until after the 120 days had run; but the appellant contends that by such acceptance of service and the use of the word “timely” the provisions of the statute regarding the filing of the abstract are obviated.

Such is not the case. The statute provides for the *filing*of the abstract within 120 days, not for the service of the abstract. Even if the service of the abstract may be regarded as “timely,” the filing was not, and the matter of filing is controlled by the statute. The only way that the express provisions of the statute requiring the filing of the abstract to be within 120 days can be avoided is by procuring an extension of time from this court, or a judge thereof. This not having been done, the motion to dismiss must be, and it is, *sustained.*— Motion *to dismiss sustamed.*
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a                               ( print page 83924)                            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 18, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 7, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 445 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-37, K2025-36.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24046 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
[Cite as State ex rel. Mayes v. Ambrose, 2012-Ohio-3824.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 98758

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. 

PETER WILLIAM MAYES

RELATOR 

vs. 

JUDGE DICK AMBROSE, ET AL.

RESPONDENTS 

JUDGMENT: 

COMPLAINT DISMISSED

Writ of Mandamus and/or Procedendo 

Order No. 457551 

RELEASE DATE: August 20, 2012 
FOR RELATOR

Peter William Mayes, pro se 

Inmate No. 442-575 

Hocking Correctional Facility 

P.O. Box 59 

Nelsonville, Ohio 45764 

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.: 

{¶1} Relator, Peter William Mayes, is the defendant in Cuyahoga C.P. No. 

CR-442426, which has been assigned to respondent judge who is a member of respondent 

court. Mayes complains that respondent imposed sentence without properly addressing 

the issue of allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25. Mayes argues that his 

sentence is void and requests this court to issue a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo to 

compel respondents “to issue a valid judgment in Case No. 02-CR-442426-ZA, and to 

vacate the sentence without unnecessary delay.” Complaint, Ad Damnum Clause. 

{¶2} For the reasons stated below, we dismiss this action sua sponte. 

{¶3} In State ex rel. Gonzalez v. Astrab, 8th Dist. No. 97922, 2012-Ohio-3582, the 

relator “Gonzalez argue[d] that his sentence [was] void and request[ed] this court to issue 

a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo to compel respondents to have him returned to 

Cuyahoga County ‘to be sentenced to a lawful sentence * * *.’ Complaint, ¶ 11.” Id. at 

¶ 1. This court granted the motion to dismiss of the respondent judge and the court of 

common pleas. 

{¶4} In Gonzalez, we reaffirmed that “allied-offense claims are nonjurisdictional 

and are not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ action.” (Citation omitted.) State ex rel. 

Agosto v. Gallagher, 8th Dist. No. 97760, 2011-Ohio-4514, ¶ 3, aff’d, 131 Ohio St.3d 

176, 2012-Ohio-563, 962 N.E.2d 796. In light of Agosto, we concluded: “The Supreme 
Court has stated clearly that original actions do not provide a remedy for allied-offense 

claims. As a consequence, we must hold that Gonzalez’s complaint fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted.” Gonzalez, supra, ¶ 4. 

{¶5} Likewise, in this action, Mayes requests relief in mandamus and/or 

procedendo with respect to his claim that respondent judge erroneously sentenced him on 

allied offenses of similar import. In light of this court’s holdings in Agosto and Gonzalez

as well as the Supreme Court’s affirming Agosto, we must also hold in this action that 

Mayes’s complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

{¶6} Accordingly, we dismiss Mayes’s complaint sua sponte. Relator to pay 

costs. This court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties notice of this judgment and 

its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). 

{¶7} Complaint dismissed. 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE 

MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3147 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3147

   To authorize the establishment, on land of the Department of the 
Interior in the District of Columbia or its environs, of a memorial and 
       gardens in honor and commemoration of Frederick Douglass.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 2 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

  Mr. Robb (for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
  Levin, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Jeffords) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize the establishment, on land of the Department of the 
Interior in the District of Columbia or its environs, of a memorial and 
       gardens in honor and commemoration of Frederick Douglass.

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

SECTION 1. MEMORIAL AND GARDENS TO HONOR AND COMMEMORATE FREDERICK 
              DOUGLASS.

    (a) In General.--Frederick Douglass Gardens, Inc., a nonprofit 
corporation, may establish a memorial and gardens on land under the 
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior in the 
District of Columbia (or its environs), in honor and commemoration of 
Frederick Douglass.
    (b) Compliance With Standards for Commemorative Works.--The 
establishment of the Frederick Douglass memorial and gardens shall be 
in accordance with the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et 
seq.).
    (c) Payment of Expenses.--
            (1) In general.--Frederick Douglass Gardens, Inc., shall be 
        solely responsible for acceptance of contributions for, and 
        payment of the expenses of, the establishment of the memorial 
        and gardens.
            (2) No use of federal funds.--No Federal funds may be used 
        to pay any expense of the establishment of the memorial and 
        gardens.
    (d) Deposit of Excess Funds.--If there remains a balance of funds 
received for the establishment of the memorial and gardens--
            (1) after payment of all expenses of the establishment of 
        the memorial and gardens (including the maintenance and 
        preservation amount required under section 8(b) of the 
        Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b))); or
            (2) on expiration of the authority for the memorial and 
        gardens under section 10(b) of that Act (40 U.S.C. 1010(b));
Frederick Douglass Gardens, Inc., shall transmit the remaining funds to 
the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the account provided for 
in section 8(b)(1) of that Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b)(1)).
                                 <all>
```
----

|   | 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|   | By:    | /s/ Ross J. Prossner                       |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Ross J. Prossner                           |   |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer      |
|   |   |                                       |   |
|   |   |                                       |   |
|   |   |                                       |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Lisa M. Jones                          |   |
|   |   | Lisa M. Jones                              |   |
|   |   | Vice-President and Principal Financial and |
|   |   | Accounting Officer                         |   |
Exhibit 31.2I, William W. Phillips, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Harrington West FinancialGroup, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
135

 
 (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: March 30, 2006         By: /s/ William W. Phillips, jr.                  William W. Phillips, Jr.           President, Chief Operating Officer           and Chief Financial Officer  
136
#### Will of Steindorff: Johnson, Executor, and others, Appellants, vs. Hughes, Respondent.

*December 8,*1942

January *12, 1943.*

*90For the appellants there was a brief by *Doar & Knowles*of New Richmond and *E. Nelton*of Balsam Lake, and oral argument by *W. T. Doar.*

*Tom L. Yates*of Amery, for the respondent.

Fkitz, J.

The administrator contends that this appeal must be dismissed on the ground that this court has not acquired jurisdiction because of the failure of appellants to serve a notice of their appeal upon four sisters and nine nieces and nephews of Edith A. Steindorff, deceased, who, together with Caroline Hughes, another sister of the deceased, constituted heirs at law and were entitled as such heirs to inherit her property if she died intestate, as was determined by the court in the judgment from which appellants appeal. The administrator’s contention must be sustained in view of the undisputed facts that there was no timely service of the notice of appeal upon the four sisters and nine nieces and nephews, although they, as was stated in the court’s findings and also the judgment, were the surviving heirs at law of the deceased, in addition to the sister Caroline Hughes, who was served. As such heirs at law all of them are clearly parties whose *91interests in and under the judgment appealed from are in conflict with the reversal thereof sought on this appeal. Consequently each and every one of them is an “adverse party” within the meaning of that term as used in the provision that,—

> “An appeal is taken by serving a notice of appeal, signed by the appellant or his attorney, on the adverse party and on the clerk of the court in which the judgment or order appealed from is entered. . . .” (Sec. 274.11 (1), Stats.)—

and as construed and applied in *Stevens v. Jacobs,*226 Wis. 198, 201, 275 N. W. 555, 276 N. W. 638; *Estate of Sveen,*202 Wis. 573, 232 N. W. 549; *Estate of Pitcher,*240 Wis. 356, 360, 2 N. W. (2d) 729. As that provision in sec. 274.11 (1), Stats., is rendered applicable to appeals from the county court to this court by the provision in sec. 324.04, Stats., which is quoted in *Estate of Pitcher, supra,*and as for the reasons stated in the cases cited above, the timely service of a notice of an appeal on all necessary adverse parties is an absolute requisite of an appeal, and in the absence of such service the appeal is ineffective and the court is without jurisdiction thereof, the appeal in question cannot be entertained.

*By the Court.*— Appeal dismissed.

Barlow, J., took no part.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joshua Barnes, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 584]

Application by the *789appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated January 31,1994 *(People v Barnes,*178 AD2d 482 [1991]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 6, 1992.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Altman, S. Miller and Krausman, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3197 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3197

To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to increase the minimum amount 
         available to States for State administrative expenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 12 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

Mr. Jeffords (for himself and Mr. Leahy) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to increase the minimum amount 
         available to States for State administrative expenses.

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

SECTION 1. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
1776(a)(2)) is amended in the second sentence by striking ``$100,000'' 
and inserting ``$200,000''.
                                 <all>
```