alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 2006-87 (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
Ml¥ 11~1042 

TQo Monsr•blo Ll11 Jll&~liDR 

Admlr:JI•,~m~ 

Unltod lt1t111 iJ:nti~Pmemal rar;oteGtloR A;IRG~ 

120Q Ji!eru:Uilll\tiiRia Avt., NW waa~iRgtoA, De aa.&o 

meer; Adl:tliRiit,.a~ JaGkaon: 

We ~ave laamai that t~a ,aqapeaed NatioRal IA11aalena ltaAclaFGia feP ~uaFdoua Jaollutlntl 

(NEIHAP) fer fieFMalleya IIFeeluotien oould have a iraatle lmpaet OA eur natleA'I li&aAt, but 

vitally lmpetrtent, mantane" ferroalloya production. Theae meteriale are • orltlcal oomJ't)nent iFi 

steel-making - having domeatlc eourcea for manoaneae alloya Ia vital for our natiaAal defense 

and lnduatrlal baae. Given thla, we urge the USEPA to work with all atakeholdel'l IFivolved to 

en&ure that the final promulgated rule !'roteota the continued opel'ltlon ef our coumry'• 

mangan11e ferroelloye manufacturers, pi'Otecte worker aafety and &~lao lmpfOvea public health. 

We have follewed t~l• iaaue eleaely, and kRew that yeu t:teva heard from a number cf l'&rtloa on 

ttqla mattaF. 6UF partleular IRtertat atema ffeM tAe faet th1t the eRiy twa de~eatla fePMalleya 

manufacturer~ left in the United Stetet are located iA Letart, Weet VIrginia and Marietta. Ohio. If 

finalized ae prepeaed, the rule will have a deoldodly negative lrfll'lct em induatry in our states, 

that eould reeult in the loa• of over 450 hlgh-waaa, union joba in are•• already l'lard·hlt by th• 

nfdlePJ'a weak eeenemy. 

Air quality has lmJ»fGued d~matically aa tleth facllltlea lnv;lued tlavo raada l~veatmerata aimad 

at iFAJJF&ViFII tillelr eAYir&AfROAtal &Ad oper:atleRal perkm,an~. a,aeifleally in eontFel teehr:teleoy 

and prooe•• efficiencies. We understand that the propoaed NESHAP standard for ferroalley1 

production would likely require them to invest In a total building encloaure/ventllatlon syetem in 

order to meet emlaelon• limite. Others have noted, however, that doing thla could lnoreaae 

employee exposure to OSHA-regulated eub&tanees at the affected facllltlaa. We urge EPA to 

make epeclal consideration• that eneure the final rule does not unintentionally cauee harm to 

employees, If there lf'O equally effective control optlone to reduce ferroalloya ernieeiona. 

It is critical that USEPA takeslnte aocouAt all of the eem,.ertta aubmitted on the 'ropoaed rule, 

ana oAaurea tl'lat the fiAal rule aete achievable ataAdafda fer the iamaatio femtallaya iAdu8tFY 

th$t benefit the public and worker health. As auch, we ask that your agency ra .. valuate the 

proposed NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production to make certain It meetl this etandard. We 

&1-'tpreciate your consideration on t"i' matter and lock forward to your reepoFtae. 

JohR ICaal;lll 

8hlo 6GUI!:ROf 

llnaorcl~, 

riaFt Aay 'fomlllin 

Welt Vlr.giAII tiSOVIfRor
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Juan ORGANES-ESPINO, a/k/a Johnny Organes, a/k/a Johnny Two Braids, a/k/a Paisa, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6644

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 12, 2017

Decided: November 17, 2017

Jose Juan Organes-Espino, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Acting *292United States Attorney, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Juan Organes-Espino appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), in which he sought the benefit of Amendment 782, and the order denying his motion for reconsideration. The district court correctly concluded that Organes-Espino is not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 and, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions. *See United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d*434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we affirm. *United States v. Organes-Espino,*No. 1:09-cr-00263-WO-1 (M.D.N.C. June 28, 2016 & May 8, 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09
- 1 9
- 00 095
- CV



### _________________ NISSAN MEXICANA, S.A. DE C.V. , Appellant
V. MELISSA SIAS, INDIVIDUALLY & AS NEXT FRIEND OF TAYLOR J. CHARLES, AND TAYLOR J. CHARLES , Appellee s

________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 60 th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. B
- 198,652

________________________________________________________________________ ORDER On July 16, 2019, a ppellant, Nissan Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. , requested an abatement of this accelerated appeal because the parties have reached a tentative settlement that includes the resolution of all claims between the parties to the accelerated appeal. T he a ppellees, Melissa Sias, i ndividually and a s n ext f rien d of Taylor J. Charles, and Taylor J. Charles , did not oppose an abatement.2 We abate the appeal until August 23, 2019. If a settlement has been finalized by that date, the parties are instructed to file a motion to reinstate and dismiss the accelerated app eal in accordance with their settlement agreement. If the parties have not finalized a settlement by that date, they are instructed to file a report informing this Court about the status of the appeal and requesting an extension of the abatement. Our Order of April 12, 2019, which stayed all further trial court proceedings except for mediation, is lifted for the purpose of conducting further proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the parties’ settlement agreement.
ORDER ENTERED July 2 3 , 201 9

. P ER CURIAM
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson , JJ.
Opinion issued March 16 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 16

- 00078

- CV

——————————— CELIA JOHNSON , Appella nt

V.
CARLA CASILLAS , Appell e e

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1071118

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Celia Johnson appeal s from a judgment in a forcible detainer case. 1

1 This appeal was previously dismissed for failure to pay appellate fees and for the clerk’s record. After our dismissal, a clerk’s record was filed indicating Johnson was indigent . We granted Johnson’s motion for rehearing, withdrew our opinion and judgment
, and rein stated the appeal, setting Johnson’s brief due thirty days after the reporter’s record was filed.2

Appellant’s brief was due on December 21, 2016. After being notified that this
appeal was subject to dismissal on January 31, 2017 , appellant did not respond to
the motion and has not filed a brief or sought an extension

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

.

P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.
#### Josephat MUA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The O’NEAL LAW FIRM, LLP; Thatcher Law Firm; Sullivan, Talbott & Batt; Bryan Chapman; RMA & Associates, LLC; Robert Elmer Cappell; Hardnett *&*Associates; Bradford Associates; Pessin Katz Law, P.A.; Maryland State Education Association; Association of Supervisory & Administrative School; Maryland State Department of Education; C. Sukari Hardnett, LLC., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-2025

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 26, 2018

Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Jodi V. Terranova, WILSON ELSER, Washington, D.C.; Lindsay A. Freedman, Linda Hitt Thatcher, THATCHER LAW FIRM, Greenbelt, Maryland; David George Mul-quin, BRAULT & GRAHAM, LLC, Rock-ville, ^Maryland; Bryan Chapman, Washington, D.C.; Raouf Muhammad Abdullah, ABDULLAH *&*ASSOCIATES LLC, Upper Malboro, Maryland; Robert Elmer Cappell, ROBERT CAPPELL ATTORNEY AT LAW, Bowie, Maryland; Andrew G. Scott, Leslie Robert Stellman, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland; Christopher Mark Feldenzer, SEROTTE ROCKMAN *&*WESTCOTT, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Nathaniel David Johnson, JOHNSON LAW GROUP LLC, White *302Plains, Maryland; William H. Fields, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Charlene Sukari Hardnett, LAW OFFICE OF C. SUKARI HARDNETT, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Josephat Mua appeals the district court’s order denying his self-styled motion to reopen his civil case against several defendants, as well as its order denying Mua’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Mua also seeks to challenge the district court’s decision to return to Mua a motion for reconsideration filed after the district court entered the above-referenced orders. Mua has filed with this court motions to proceed in forma pauperis, to exceed the length limitations for his informal brief, and to file amended and supplemental informal briefs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the pending motions and affirm the district court’s orders.**See Mua v. The O’Neal Law Firm, LLP,*No. 8:14-cv-02334-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2017; filed Aug. 1, 2017 & entered Aug. 2, 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 We discern no reversible error in the district court’s refusal to entertain Mua’s motion for reconsideration.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 06/06-0349]

Notice is hereby given that Main Street Capital III, L.P., 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77056, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the “Act”), in connection with a financing involving small concern NuStep, LLC located at 511 Venture Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, provided notice of this transaction to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) pursuant to the Regulations found at 13 CFR 107.730—13 CFR 107.730—Financings which constitute conflicts of interests. NuStep, LLC is an Associate of Main Street Capital III, L.P. because Associate Main Street Equity Investment, Inc. owns a greater than ten percent interest in the NuStep, LLC.

This financing is pursuant to § 107.730(f) of the Regulations because Main Street Capital III, L.P.'s parent corporation, Main Street Capital Corporation, is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and received an exemption from the Securities and Exchange Commission for the transaction and fulfilled its requirement to notify SBA.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.

U.S. Small Business Administration.

Bailey DeVries,

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2022-06219 Filed 3-23-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00776-CR

Eugene John Miller, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF LEE COUNTY

NO. 10,247, THE HONORABLE REVA TOWSLEE-CORBETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

We grant appellant Eugene John Miller’s pro se motion to dismiss his appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: December 15, 2023

Do Not Publish
| (logo) Prudential | Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.

 

Prudential Mortgage Capital Company

2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 Dallas, TX 75201

Tel 877-937-4500 |
|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

Attn: Commercial Mtg Servicing

MAC D1086-120

550 South Tryon Street,14th Floor

Charlotte, NC 28202

 

 

 

RE:        Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through, **WFRBS 2014-C24**

Period:  **November 1. 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting Period**"**)**

Annual Compliance Statement

 

I, Hal Collett, in my capacity as President and Managing Director of Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify with regard to the Company's role as Primary Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, (the "Agreement") dated as of November 1, 2014 pertaining to the above-referenced certificates, that:

 

(i)            a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the Reporting Period, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii)           to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

 

 

Effective as of February 24, 2015

 

 

/s/ Hal Collett

Hal Collett

President and Managing Director

Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.
WILLIE A. BRIGHT, ET AL.

,

Petitioner,

v.

HANCOCK BANK, AS

ASSIGNEE OF THE FEDERAL

DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION AS RECEIVER

OF PEOPLES FIRST

COMMUNITY BANK

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3601

Opinion filed November 12, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Rev. James T. Golden, Brade nton , for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSE D.

BENTON, ROBERTS, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 35.10



LOGO

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

OF

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

The undersigned, Job Warshaw, being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the Special Servicer), as special servicer under the
applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in
his capacity as an authorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:



| | 1. | A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1, 2015 and ending on December 31, 2015 (or any other shorter period set forth on Schedule I hereto)
(the Reporting Period), and of the Special Servicers performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling
and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



LNR PARTNERS, LLC,a Florida limited liability companyBy:

/s/ Job WarshawJob WarshawPresident


Dated: February 23, 2016





1601 Washington Avenue  Suite
700  Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600  Fax: (305) 695-5601



---

Schedule I

GSMS 2014-GC24

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-GC24



|Ref: | Stamford Plaza Portfolio, portion was contributed into CGCMT 2015-GC27
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage
Securities Inc.

390 Greenwich Street, 5th Floor

New York,
NY 10013

Paul Vanderslice

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage
Securities Inc.

388 Greenwich Street, 17th Floor

New York,
NY 10013

Ryan M. OConnor

Citibank, N.A.

Agency and Trust

388 Greenwich Street, 14th Floor

New York, NY 10013

John Hannon
#### PERRY FORGIONE *v.*ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, ET AL.

(AC 20645)

Lavery, C. J., and Spear and Peters, Js.

Argued April 5

officially released May 8, 2001

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
No. 11-10377.

#### Zorn *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Setser*v. *United States,*566 U. S. 231 (2012).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Shawn MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7406

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

Steven Shawn Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Scott Andrew Lemmon, Timothy Severo, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM

Steven Shawn Marshall appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Finding no error, we affirm.

A district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a Sentencing Guidelines range subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. *United States v. Smalls,*720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013). ‘Whether to reduce a sentence and to what extent is a matter within the district court’s discretion.” *Id.*‘We review a district court’s grant or denial of a [18 U.S.C.] § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion.” *Id.*In determining whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence, the court must consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors and whether a reduction would pose a danger to any person or the community, and may also consider the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct. *Id.; see*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 p.s. cmt. 1(B)(i)-(iii) (2014).

*217“[A]bsent a contrary indication, we presume a district court deciding a § 3582(c)(2) motion has considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and other pertinent matters before it.” *Smalls,*720 F.3d at 195-96 (internal quotation marks omitted); *United States v. Legree,*205 F.3d 724, 728-29 (4th Cir. 2000). Contrary to Marshall’s assertion, we conclude that, although the district court’s order denying the motion was relatively brief, the court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors, public safety, and Marshall’s post-sentencing conduct. We discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to deny Marshall’s motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

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.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Michael J. Antonoplos, Chief Executive Officer of Biofield Corp. and I, Joseph Repko, Chief Financial Officer of Biofield Corp. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)

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





| | Date: November 19, 2007 | By: /s/ Michael J. Antonoplos 
                    Michael J. Antonopolos
                    (Chief Executive Officer)
| | ----------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Date: November 19, 2007 | By: /s/ Joseph Repko Joseph Repko
               (Chief Financial Officer)