alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 33.3**




**Management’s
      Assertion on**


**Compliance
      with Regulation AB Criteria**




**ASSERTION
      OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA**




The
      Bank
      of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A.(collectively, the
      “Company”) provides this platform-level assessment of compliance with the
      servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission.





Management
      has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable in regards
      to the following servicing platform for the following period:





Platform :
      Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under
      the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed securities and
      other mortgage-related asset-backed securities issued on or after January 1,
      2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to January 1, 2006) for which
      the
      Company provides trustee, securities administration, paying agent or custodial
      services. The platform includes like kind transactions for which the Company
      provided trustee, securities administrator, paying agent or custodial services
      as a result of the Company’s acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of
      JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s corporate trust business, including structured
      finance agency and trust transactions.





Applicable
      Servicing Criteria :
      All
      servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by the
      related transaction agreements as to any transaction, except for the following
      criteria: 1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii), (iv), (4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii),
      (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).





Period :
      Twelve
      months ended December 31, 2006.





With
      respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following
      assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
      Criteria:





· The
      Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
      Servicing Criteria.





· The
      Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing
      Criteria.





·
      A s
      of
      December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material compliance
      with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.











Ernst
      & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an
      attestation report with respect to the Company’s foregoing assessment of
      compliance.




The Bank of New York
            
            
            The Bank of New YorkThe Bank of New York Trust
            
            
            The Bank of New York TrustCompany,
                N.A.
            
            
            Company,
                N.A.Robert
              L. Griffin
            
            
            Patrick
              J. TadieAuthorized
              Signer
            
            
            Authorized
              Signer


March
      1, 2007
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00185-CV

RICHARD L. PEMBERTON D/B/A

PEMBERTON FINE CUSTOM 

HOMES, LLC AND RICHARD L. 

PEMBERTON

APPELLANTS

V.

VICK COX AND JACKIE COX APPELLEES

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered the parties’ “Joint Motion To Dismiss.” It is the court=s 

opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which 

let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ. 

DELIVERED: January 19, 2012
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felipe PINON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10491 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Felipe Pinon, Pro Se

*884Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Felipe Pinon has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Pinon has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-79 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report 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 as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports 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 thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred James NIX, a.k.a. June P, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10309

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 27, 2017

*684Nicholas Dana Dickinson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Adam McMeen Flake, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Cristen C. Thayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *684See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Fred James Nix appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

As the government concedes, the district court plainly erred by failing to address Nix personally to ask if he wanted to speak before sentencing. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(E); *United States v. Daniels,*760 F.3d 920, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for re-sentencing. *See Daniels,*760 F.3d at 926.

Nix also argues that the district court failed to calculate the applicable Guidelines range, relied on clearly erroneous facts regarding his dangerousness, wrongly ordered him shackled during the revocation hearing, violated his due process rights by relying on unproven, dismissed allegations, and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We need not resolve these claims in light of our decision to remand for re-sentencing. However, considering Nix’s allegations and the record as a whole, we agree with Nix that his case should be remanded to a different district judge on remand. *See United States v. Quach,*302 F.3d 1096, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2002) (ordering reassignment to preserve the appearance of justice). Accordingly, on remand, this case shall be reassigned to a different district judge within the District of Nevada.

On September 28, 2017, at Docket Entry No. 7, appellant filed a notice of intent to file previously sealed documents publicly pursuant to Interim Ninth Circuit Rule 27-13(f), and submitted volume III of the excerpts of record provisionally under seal. No other party has filed a motion to file or maintain these documents under seal. Therefore, the Clerk is directed to unseal the notice and volume III of the excerpts of record, and to file publicly the opening brief and volumes I through III of the excerpts of record.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
----

| Entity                                        |   | Jurisdiction |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|--------------|
| Cornerstone      Operating Partnership, L.P.  |   | Delaware     |
| CGI      Healthcare Operating Partnership, LP |   | Delaware     |
| CGI      Industrial Operating Partnership, LP |   | Delaware     |
| CGI      Retail Operating Partnership, LP     |   | Delaware     |
| Master      HC TRS, LLC                       |   | Delaware     |
| Caruth      Haven TRS, LLC                    |   | Delaware     |
| Caruth      Haven GP, LLC                     |   | Delaware     |
| Caruth      Haven, L.P.                       |   | Delaware     |
| The      Oaks Bradenton TRS, LLC              |   | Delaware     |
| The      Oaks Bradenton, LLC                  |   | Delaware     |

----
#### Gonzalo Bravo PALACIOS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73638

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 ***

Filed June 30, 2017

Alejandro Garcia, Attorney, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner

Drew Brinkman, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gonzalo Bravo Palacios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding Bravo Palacios failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. *See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch,*816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, we deny the petition as to his withholding of removal claim.

*878Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Bravo Palacios failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.9

                                                                  EXECUTION COPY

                                  May 21, 2002

VIA FACSIMILE (+81-(0)3-3500-0108)

Vespasianus Co., Ltd.
Hibiya Dai-Bldg., 15th Floor
1-2-2 Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo, Japan 100-0011
Attention:  Norimitsu Niwa

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Reference is made to that certain Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of
April 11, 2002, between Valtona Holding B.V. ("Valtona") and MTS, Incorporated
("Seller"), as assigned by Valtona to Vespasianus Co., Ltd. ("Purchaser")
pursuant to that certain Assumption and Release Agreement dated as of May 10,
2002, among Seller, Valtona and Purchaser (the "Purchase Agreement").
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein are used as defined in the
Purchase Agreement.

         Seller and Purchaser hereby agree to amend the Purchase Agreement as
follows:

         1. Section 1.3(a) of the Purchase Agreement is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety as follows:

         "(a) The closing of the transactions contemplated in this Agreement
(the "Closing") shall be held at 8:00 a.m. at the offices of Cleary, Gottlieb,
Steen & Hamilton, in Tokyo, Japan on June 19, 2002 or as soon thereafter as
practicable after each of the conditions set forth in Article VI of this
Agreement shall have been fulfilled or waived in accordance herewith, or at such
other time, date or place as the parties hereto may agree in writing. The date
on which the Closing occurs is referred to as the `Closing Date'."

         2. Section 8.1(e) of the Purchase Agreement is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety as follows:

         "(e) By either Purchaser or Seller if the Closing shall not have
occurred on or prior to August 15, 2002, provided that such date shall be
postponed by no more than sixty (60) days by an involuntary bankruptcy of Seller
that is subsequently stayed or dismissed (as extended from time to time in
accordance herewith, the `Outside Date'); and provided further that the failure
of the Closing to occur on or before such date is not the result of the breach
of the covenants, agreements, representations or warranties of the party seeking
such termination."
<PAGE>
         Except as expressly set forth herein, the Purchase Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect. This letter may be signed in one or more
counterparts all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one original.

                                            Sincerely,

                                            MTS, INCORPORATED



                                            By:  /s/  Michael T. Solomon
                                                 ------------------------
                                                 Name: Michael T. Solomon
                                                 Title:  President


 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

 VESPASIANUS CO., LTD.



 By:    /s/  Kazuya Iwanaga
      ---------------------
 Name:  Kazuya Iwanaga
 Title: President
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0671 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0671

**2002/671/EC: Commission Decision of 20 August 2002 amending Decision 97/569/EC to include a Romanian establishment producing wild game meat products (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 3102) **

*
Official Journal L 228 , 24/08/2002 P. 0025 - 0025 *

Commission Decision

of 20 August 2002

amending Decision 97/569/EC to include a Romanian establishment producing wild game meat products

(notified under document number C(2002) 3102)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/671/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs(1), as last amended by Decision 2001/4/EC(2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of meat products have been drawn up by Commission Decision 97/569/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2002/74/EC(4).

(2) The Commission has received from Romania details of a wild game meat product establishment, with guarantees that it fully meets the relevant Community health requirements and that should this establishment fail to do so, its export activities to the European Community would be suspended.

(3) A provisional list of establishments producing wild game meat products may thus be drawn up in respect of Romania, and Decision 97/569/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The text in the Annex to this Decision is added to the Annex to Decision 97/569/EC.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 August 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 234, 26.8.1997, p. 16.

(4) OJ L 33, 2.2.2002, p. 29.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

País: Rumania/Land: Rumænien/Land: Rumänien/Κράτος: Ρουμανία/Country: Romania/Pays: Roumanie/Paese: Romania/Land: Roemenië/País: Roménia/Maa: Romania/Land: Rumänien

>TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7819
RAYMOND E. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN BIDWELL; P. J. STEVENS; MS. GREENE; CAPTAIN TYNDALL; LIEUTENANT LEWIS; LIEUTENANT TEMPLE; TILLEY, DHO; LIEUTENANT SLAYTON; ODOM, Correctional Officer; RIFENBERY, CorrectionalOfficer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TAYLOR; COUNSELOR STEINQUIST; COUNSELOR GREENE; M. J. BRIGHT;CARTER, Correctional Officer; ROBINSON, Correctional Officer; ALVERADO, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96- 1187-MJG, CA-96-2025-MJG, CA-96-2075-MJG, CA-96-2076-MJG, CA-96- 2304-MJG, CA-96-2494-MJG) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: March 4, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond E. Washington, Appellant Pro Se.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil actions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 1996), for making false allegations of poverty. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Washington v. Bidwell , Nos. CA-96-1187-MJG; CA-96-2025-MJG; CA-96- 2075-MJG; CA-96-2076-MJG; CA-96-2304-MJG; CA-96-2494-MJG (D. Md. Nov. 7, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

August 12 , 2016 

# Order

Clerk August 12 , 2016

15 3 9 79( 51 )

MARLETTE AUTO WASH, LLC

, Plaintiff/Cross

- Defendant

- Appellant

, SC: 15 3 9 79

v COA: 3 26486

Sanilac CC: 14

- 0 35490

- C H

VAN DYKE SC PROPERTIES, LLC

, Defendant/Cross

- Plaintiff

- Appellee

. _________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of plaintiff /cross

- defendant

- appell ant to

extend the time for filing its reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely

filed if submitted on or before August 2 3 , 2016.
#### Lynne KORFF, as Statutory Plaintiff and surviving mother of Timothy O’Brien deceased—on behalf of all Statutory Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, A MUNICIPALITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16020

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted October 18, 2017 San Francisco, California

FILED OCTOBER 31, 2017

Kenneth Brent Vaughn, Grant <& Vaughn, PC, Luis P. Guerra, David Carey Shapiro, Law Offices of Luis P. Guerra LLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lori V. Berke, Esquire, Jody Campbell Corbett, Berke Law Firm, PLLC, Sally A. Odegard, Esquire, Jesse M. Showalter, Counsel, Holloway Odegard Forrest Kelly & Kasparek PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM **

The purpose of summary judgment is to identify whether material fact questions *574exist, not to resolve them. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action,1 the district court granted summary judgment on •claims arising out of a June 2012 confrontation between two Phoenix police officers and the late Timothy O’Brien at a public park. According to the officers, O’Brien was wielding a baseball bat, advancing towards them, and disregarding commands to stop and drop the bat when they fired their weapons. O’Brien’s- mother, Lynne Korff (“Korff’), contends that her son had dropped the bat.and was no longer advancing towards the officers when the fatal shots were fired. Taking the evidence put forward on O’Brien’s behalf and, as we must, making all inferences from the record evidence in O’Brien’s favor, we conclude that a jury must resolve this critical factual dispute. *See Bracken v. Okura,*869 F.3d 771, 778 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing *Zetwick v. Cty. of Yolo,*850 F.3d 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2017)). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

This factual dispute is also central to the officers’ assertion that they are entitled to qualified immunity and Korffs state law negligence claim against the City of Phoenix.

Because nothing in the record suggests that the magistrate judge could not fairly and correctly apply the law on remand, we decline the suggestion that the case be assigned to a different judge. Neither our determination that summary judgment was erroneously granted nor the preservation of the appearance of justice warrants reassignment on remand. *See Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc.,*235 F.3d 1184, 1196 (9th Cir. 2000).

Our conclusions necessitate the vacatur of the fee and cost award below,2

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate, for publication and is not precedent except as provid*574ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Korff also brings a related negligence claim under Arizona law.

2

. For that reason, Appellees' Motion to Strike Korffs Amended Notice of Appeal is denied as moot.