alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WELLS
FARGO
Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1086-120, 12th Floor
550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334



Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.






Together we'll go far


ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling  and  Servicing  Agreement  dated
as  of  September  1,  2014,  by  and  among    WELLS  FARGO  COMMERCIAL  MORTGAGE
SECURITIES, INC.,  as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General
Master  Servicer,  CWCAPITAL  ASSET  MANAGEMENT  LLC,  as  General  Special  Servicer,NCB,

FSB,  as  NCB  Master  Servicer,  NCB,  FSB,  as  NCB  Special  Servicer,  PENTALPHA
SURVEILLANCE  LLC,  as  Trust  Advisor,  WELLS  FARGO  BANK,  NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,  as  Certificate  Administrator,  as  Tax  Administrator  and  as  Custodian,and

WILMINGTON  TRUST,  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION,  as  Trustee,  with  respect  to  Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates  Series 2014-C22 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used
herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this 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 September 1, 2014
through  December  31,  2014,  (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  this  Agreement  in  all  material  respects  throughout  the  Reporting
Period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of


March 2015.







/s/ Daniel Bober
Daniel Bober
Executive Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Powerhouse Technologies Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jay
Elliot, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: August 15, 2005

/s/ Jay Elliot
-----------------------
Jay Elliot
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 35.1



AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby
certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the
“Company”), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer” and
“Sponsor”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of November 26, 2014 among
the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2014-4 Owner Trust, as follows:



| | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2017, and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (ii) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this 22nd day of May, 2017.



| | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                   
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | Paul C. Honda                                       
| | Vice President and Assistant Secretary              
| | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 25, 2024

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-24-00197-CV

JERRY RAMON, Appellant

V.

DULCE CARIDAD BARAJAS MARTINEZ, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-19736

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Smith, Miskel, and Breedlove

Opinion by Justice Smith

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and take judicial 

notice of prison mailroom issues. We grant the motion to the extent we dismiss the 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

240197F.P05 /Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JERRY RAMON, Appellant

No. 05-24-00197-CV V.

DULCE CARIDAD BARAJAS 

MARTINEZ, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-19736.

Opinion delivered by Justice Smith, 

Justices Miskel and Breedlove 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this day of April 25, 2024.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 March 27, 2020 b0323

Order 

Clerk

March 27, 2020

159950

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159950

COA: 346794

Livingston CC: 13-021340-FH

13-021416-FH

LEONARD LEWIS KING,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2019 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
No. 11-1039.

#### Tappen *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for RBS Commercial Funding Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C25

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 25, 2016

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David L. MCCANNON, Appellant.

WD 79592

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: December 26, 2017

*430Evan J. Buchheim, Jefferson City, for , Respondent

Samuel E. Buffaloe, for Appellant

Before Division Three: Lisa White Hardwick, Presiding Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge, and Aiok Ahuja, Judge

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

David McCannon appeals his conviction after jury trial in the Johnson County Circuit Court of one count of the class C felony of possession of a controlled substance. He presents two points on appeal. First, he claims the trial court erred in overruling his *Batson*objection. Second, he claims that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a- memorandum has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b). The judgment is affirmed. ■
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 93-7678

 JAMES COOPER, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

VERSUS

W.B. "Billy" NOBLE, Sheriff of Madison 

County, Et Al.,

Defendants,

 JESSIE HOPKINS, Sheriff of Madison

 County, ROBERT J. DOWDLE, MARCUS SHARPE,

 DAVID H. RICHARDSON, KARL M. BANKS & J.L.

 MCCULLOUGH, Members of the Madison County

 Board of Supervisors,

 Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(December 15, 1994)

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:

We supplement our prior opinion, see Cooper v. Noble, 33 F.3d

540 (5th Cir. 1994), as follows:

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
2

("the Act"), P.L. 103-322, 90 Stat. 1827, effective September 13,

1994, provides for periodic reopening "at the behest of a

defendant" of court orders or consent decrees seeking to remedy

prison or jail crowding that violates the Eighth Amendment. Id.

§ 20409(a) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c)). The Act applies to

all outstanding court orders on the date of its enactment. Id. §

20409(b).

No issue pertaining to the Act was brought before us; the

defendants did not, pursuant to the Act, request a reopening; and,

finally, the District Court proceedings reviewed in this appeal

were conducted prior to September 13, 1994. Accordingly, the

provisions of the Act are not applicable to our determination of

the instant appeal.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 May 28, 2013

t0520

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2013

146769

LEE GULLEY, Personal Representative of the

Estate of Jeremiah Gulley,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 146769

COA: 304291 

Kalamazoo CC: 2010-000431-NO

ROBERT SMITH and JOHN SCHMIDT,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 27, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 305

To designate Saturday, November 30, 1996, as ‘‘National Duck Calling Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

Mr. PRYOR (for himself, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. BREAUX, and

Mr. FORD) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To designate Saturday, November 30, 1996, as ‘‘National

Duck Calling Day’’.

Whereas Stuttgart, Arkansas, with its flooded rice and soybean fields, is located in the heart of the Mississippi

River flyway for migratory birds;

Whereas for the past 60 years, the World’s Championship

Duck Calling Contest and the Wings Over the Prairie

Festival have attracted waterfowl enthusiasts from

around the world to come to Stuttgart, Arkansas, on

Thanksgiving Day weekend;

Whereas the first national duck calling contest was held on

November 24, 1936, as part of the traditional Rice Carnival in downtown Stuttgart;
2

•SRES 305 ATS

Whereas Thomas E. Walsh of Greenville, Mississippi, was the

first national duck calling contest champion, and was

awarded a hunting coat valued at $6.60 for his achievement;

Whereas today, the World’s Championship Duck Calling Contest draws contestants from throughout the United

States and Canada, with a first place prize package valued at over $15,000;

Whereas in order to enter the World’s Championship Duck

Calling Contest a contestant must qualify by winning a

World’s Championship Duck Calling Contest sanctioned

calling contest, which are held in 29 states; and

Whereas over the history of the World’s Championship Duck

Calling Contest attendance at the event has steadily

grown; the number of participants has jumped from

10,000 in 1954, to 50,000 in 1992, to 65,000 in 1995:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates Saturday, No2 vember 30, 1996, as ‘‘National Duck Calling Day’’. The

3 President is authorized and requested to issue a proclama4 tion calling upon the people of the United States to ob5 serve such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
SHAK-20171129_Exhibit 10.1



Exhibit 10.1










November 22, 2017


Ms. Anna Fieler
2036 Sterling Ave.
Menlo Park, CA 94025


Dear Anna:


This letter sets forth the terms and conditions of your election to serve as a director (“Director”) on the board of directors (the “Board”) of Shake Shack Inc. (the “Company”) and to serve as a member of the Compensation Committee of the Board (“Committee”), effective as of December 8, 2017.  
As a Director, you are expected to attend at least four (4) Board meetings and Committee meetings annually and shall have such other duties and responsibilities as are customarily associated with this position.  You shall continue to serve on the Board until such time as either you or the Company (or its successor) terminates your service or you are not re-elected to the Board.  
As consideration for your anticipated service on the Board and the Committee, you will be entitled to receive cash and equity compensation consistent with the Company’s Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy (the “Compensation Policy”).  As such, for the current annual Director service cycle, from June 12, 2017 through next year’s annual meeting of stockholders, anticipated mid-June 2018, (A) you shall receive cash equal to $18,750, payable in two (2) equal installments of $9,375, within 3 business days following each of the December 8, 2017 and March 22, 2018 quarterly meetings of the Board, and (B) you shall be granted, within one (1) business day following the December 8, 2017 meeting of the Board, restricted stock units for such number of shares of the Company’s Class A common stock as may be determined based on an aggregate grant date fair value of $18,750, as calculated on or as close in time as practicable to the grant date.  You agree that you shall comply with the Company’s Compensation Policy.   
You will also be entitled to coverage under a directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy maintained by the Company.
During your tenure as a Director, you shall at all times and for all purposes be acting as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the Company.  Accordingly, you shall not be eligible to participate in employee benefit plans provided by the Company to its employees and the Company shall not, on your account, (i) pay any unemployment tax or other taxes required under the law to be paid with respect to employees or (ii) withhold any monies from any compensation paid to you for income or employment tax purposes.  Director compensation is established by the Board and so, notwithstanding this letter, it may be revised at any time and from time to time.
Please confirm that the foregoing reflects your understanding by delivering to us a signed version of this letter at your earliest convenience.  We are glad to have you aboard and look forward to working together.  Please feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss any aspect of your service on the Board.    
Sincerely,
                        	
	
	 /s/   Daniel H. Meyer

	Daniel H. Meyer, Chairman








Accepted & Agreed:
	
	
	 /s/   Anna Fieler

	Anna Fieler






Date: November 22, 2017
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20580 Summary Calendar

CHARLES L. CARR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; S.O. WOODS; VICTOR RODRIGUEZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-98-CV-3440)

-------------------- October 9, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellee Charles L. Carr, Texas state prisoner

number 260693, has appealed the district co urt’s judgment

dismissing his civil rights action as frivolous and for failure to

state a claim. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Carr contends that

his right to equal protection was violated by the inclusion of

inaccurate and infla mmatory information in his state prison and2

parole records. Carr insists that the defendants are required to

keep accurate records under state and federal law.

A violation of state law is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1983, see Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. , 28 F.3d 521, 525

(5th Cir. 1994), and the p rivate right of action created by 5

U.S.C. § 552a(g) of the Privacy Act is limited to actions against

agencies of the federal government; it does not apply to state

agencies or individuals. S ee Dittman v. California

, 191 F.3d 1020,

1026 (9th Cir. 1999). Carr’s state law claim is without merit, as

are his federal equal-protection and Privacy Act claims. All are

frivolous, as found by the district court. S ee Johnson v.

Rodriguez , 110 F.3d 299, 306-09 (5th Cir. 1997).

As Carr has not shown that the defendants violated a clearly

established federal statutory or constitutional right of which a

reasonable person would have known, see Hart v. O’Brien , 127 F.3d

424, 441 (5th Cir. 1997)

, he has not shown that the district court

erred in concluding that the defendants are entitled to qualified

immunity from suit. This contention is frivolous too.

Furthermore, Carr’s appeal to this court is frivolous. We

therefore dismiss it as such. See Howard v. King

, 707 F.2d 215,

220 (5t h Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Finally, we caution Carr

that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous

and for failure to state a claim is a “strike” for the purposes of

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and our dismissal of his appeal as frivolous3

constitutes a second strike. S ee Adepegba v. Hammons
, 103 F.3d

383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement  dated as  of November 1,2014, by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior TrustAdvisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2014-C25 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwisedefined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER D. ZURCHER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

GUY HALL, Superintendent, Two Rivers

Correctional Institution,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-35881

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00570-PK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Garr M. King, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Oregon state prisoner Christopher D. Zurcher appeals from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

FILED

JUN 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-35881

Zurcher contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel

by failing to object, based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), to the

imposition of an upward departure from the presumptive sentence under the

Oregon Sentencing Guidelines based upon judge-found facts. Because Zurcher has

failed to demonstrate prejudice from any alleged error, the Oregon 

court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable

application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);

see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). 

AFFIRMED.