alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-01-1999
<CASH>                                       1,274,932
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  247,226
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (62,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,127,904
<PP&E>                                         368,014
<DEPRECIATION>                                (103,760)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,863,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          535,887
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           476
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,290,266
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,863,212
<SALES>                                      3,511,277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,511,277
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,186,238
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (54,382)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (620,579)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (620,579)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (620,579)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.11)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vance HOARD, a.k.a Bernard Hoard, a.k.a. Vance Holland, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-12612 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(December 15, 2017)

Ryan Michael Christian, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, U.S. Attorney Service— Northern District of Georgia, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Kendal Silas, W. Matthew Dodge, Stephanie A. Kearns, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Vance Hoard’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *See United States v. Grinard-Henry,*399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005); *United States v. Bushert,*997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (“[F]or a waiver to be effective it must be knowing and voluntary.”).
Rutland Plywood Site Visit

On September 11, 2013, EPA staff and managers visited Rutland Plywood Corporation’s manufacturing plant in Rutland, Vermont. Rutland Plywood has submitted comments on EPA’s recently proposed regulations implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act. Jack Barrett, President of Rutland Plywood, and Doug Babbitt, Executive Vice President, led EPA on a tour of the facilities. The tour included observing different steps involved in manufacturing (e.g., pressing, rotary lathe, lumber yar d) and examples of different products manufactured by Rutland Plywood.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            1,962
<SECURITIES>                                      1,239
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                        567
<INVENTORY>                                       1,814
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5,943
<PP&E>                                            1,946
<DEPRECIATION>                                      721
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    7,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,290
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              4
<OTHER-SE>                                        5,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      7,169
<SALES>                                             723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    723
<CGS>                                               705
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2,362
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1,597)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (1,597)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     (232)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1,829)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.44)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6729

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA JUSTON SEIBLES,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-7076

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA JUSTON SEIBLES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00461-MBS-1; 3:13-cv-00712-MBS)

Submitted: August 26, 2013 Decided: September 18, 2013

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Joshua Juston Seibles, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Juston Seibles seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2013) motion, denying his motion to set aside his criminal 

judgment, and denying his motion to dismiss for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. The order denying Seibles’ § 2255 motion 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Seibles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of 
4

the district court’s order denying habeas relief. Likewise, we 

have reviewed the record and Seibles’ claims with regard to the 

denial of his motions to set aside the criminal judgment and to 

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and find no 

reversible error. We therefore affirm the district court’s 

orders denying those motions. Finally, we dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 17104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06355]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT BOARD FOR THE ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES


Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.

ACTION: Notice of federal advisory committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice 
of a closed teleconference meeting of the Advisory Committee on 
Actuarial Examinations.

DATES: The meeting will be held on April 22, 2022, from 9:00 a.m. to 
5:00 p.m. (EDT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated 
Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, at (202) 
317-3648 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#73161f1a09121116071b5d195d05121d1c0007161d331a01005d141c05"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9ccc5c0d3c8cbccddc187c387dfc8c7c6daddccc7e9c0dbda87cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Advisory 
Committee on Actuarial Examinations will hold a teleconference meeting 
on April 22, 2022, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT). The meeting will 
be closed to the public.
    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that 
may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in 
actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 
U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).
    A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app., that the subject of the 
meeting falls within the exception to the open meeting requirement set 
forth in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest 
requires that such meeting be closed to public participation.
    The Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of 
Actuaries, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating 
the authority to electronically sign this document to Susan L. Erdos, 
who is the Federal Register Liaison for the Joint Board for the 
Enrollment of Actuaries, for purposes of publication in the Federal 
Register.

    Dated: March 22, 2022.
Susan L. Erdos,
Federal Register Liaison, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
[FR Doc. 2022-06355 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(logo)CWCapital

ASSETMANAGEMENT

** **

**Annual Statement asto Compliance**

**For the Period ofJanuary 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017**

** **

* *

**WFRBS 2014-C22**

** **

 

Inaccordance with Item 1123 of Regulation AB and****with the requirementsdetailed in §11.12 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) forthe above-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital Asset ManagementLLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’sCertificate with respect to the following:

 

(A)      a review of CWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year or portionthereof (the “Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under the Agreementhas been made under such officer’s supervision and;

 

(B)      to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM hasfulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

Shouldyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.  

 

Sincerely,

CWCapitalAsset Management LLC

/s/DavidB. Iannarone 

DavidB. Iannarone

President

 

 

7501Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda, MD 20814

www.cwcapital.com
# Official Journal C 250/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 250 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6225 July 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 250

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6225 July 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European ParliamentCouncil |
| 2019/C 250/01 | Joint Statement by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission relating to Regulation (EU) 2019/1243 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 adapting a number of legal acts providing for the use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European ParliamentCouncil

2019/C 250/01

Joint Statement by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission relating to Regulation (EU) 2019/1243 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 adapting a number of legal acts providing for the use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Parliament Council

| 25.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/1

---

Joint Statement by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission relating to Regulation (EU) 2019/1243 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 adapting a number of legal acts providing for the use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1)

(2019/C 250/01)

In point 27 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making the three institutions acknowledged the need for the alignment of all existing legislation to the legal framework introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, and in particular the need to give high priority to the prompt alignment of all basic acts which still refer to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. Following the proposal of the Commission to that end, this Regulation responds to that need by providing for the alignment of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny in a significant number of acts included in that proposal. The three institutions will continue to work on the alignment of the remaining acts of that proposal.

---

(1)  OJ L 198, 25.7.2019, p. 241.

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 2062** 

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. W. EARL BRITT; JAMES C. FOX; JAMES C. DEVER, III; LOUISE W. FLANAGAN; TERRENCE W. BOYLE; MALCOLM J. HOWARD; JAMES C. GATES; REBECCA BEACH SMITH , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. ( 5:16

- ct

- 03211

- CO )

Submitted : February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
William Scott Davis, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (20 12 ) his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Britt , No. 5:16

- ct

- 03211

- CO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 12, 2016)
. We deny all of Davis’ pending motions, incl uding his motions to remand, to appoint a guardian ad litem, to reconsider, for recusal, for leave to file supplemental brief, and for oral argument. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kelly TURNER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10677 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 12, 2018

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

Kelly Turner, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kelly Turner 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). Turner has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Turner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Turner’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Turner’s request for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED, the 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.
Exhibit 33.2
                                  ------------


           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:

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

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

o    As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



                                        1
<PAGE>


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 York
      The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
         Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.


      /s/ Robert L. Griffin                   /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
      ---------------------------             ---------------------------
      Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
      Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer


March 1, 2007



                                        2
# Official Journal L 7/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.007.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 7 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5611 January 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.007.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 7

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5611 January 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | | 2013/11/EU |
| | * | Council Decision of 18 December 2012 on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex IV (Energy) and to Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement | 1 |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 12/2013 of 10 January 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

2013/11/EU

*

Council Decision of 18 December 2012 on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex IV (Energy) and to Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement

1

REGULATIONS

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 12/2013 of 10 January 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.