alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 34.2




Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (Ernst & Young LLP)









Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




The Board of Directors

U.S. Bank National Association




We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar or paying agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2015, except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)–(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(v)–(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i), and 1122(d)(4)(i)–(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report.  Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.
  Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.
  In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended March 31, 2015, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.









/s/ Ernst & Young LLP




Minneapolis, Minnesota


May 29, 2015
# Official Journal L 43/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.043.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 43 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5318 February 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.043.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 43

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5318 February 2010

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 133/2010 of 4 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 820/2008 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (1) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 134/2010 of 9 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 820/2008 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (1) | 3 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EU) No 135/2010 of 17 February 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 5 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 133/2010 of 4 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 820/2008 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (1)

1

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 134/2010 of 9 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 820/2008 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (1)

3

Commission Regulation (EU) No 135/2010 of 17 February 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

5

| | | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 30, 31.1.2009) | 7 |

Corrigenda

*

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 30, 31.1.2009)

OJ L 30, 31.1.2009

7

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8223 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8223

   To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 promote evidence-based 
    controls for defending against common cybersecurity threats and 
              cybersecurity risks, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 11, 2020

Mr. Katko (for himself, Mr. Langevin, Ms. Eshoo, Miss Rice of New York, 
and Mr. Gallagher) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 promote evidence-based 
    controls for defending against common cybersecurity threats and 
              cybersecurity risks, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cyber Essentials Act''.

SEC. 2. EVIDENCE-BASED CONTROLS FOR DEFENDING AGAINST COMMON 
              CYBERSECURITY THREATS AND CYBERSECURITY RISKS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 2203 of the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 653) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon at the end;
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(4) in consultation with the National Institute of 
        Standards and Technology, develop, publish, and update as 
        necessary guidelines and processes for a national audience 
        regarding usable evidence-based controls that have the most 
        impact in defending against common cybersecurity threats and 
        cybersecurity risks; and''.
    (b) Restriction.--Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code 
(commonly known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'') shall not apply to 
any action to implement the amendments made by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
| (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, NationalAssociation Commercial Mortgage ServicingMAC D1086550 South Tryon Street, 14th FloorCharlotte, North Carolina 28202Attention: Asset Manager

RE:**WFCM 2014-LC18**

Period:**January 1, 2016to December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period")**

**Annual Compliance Statement**I, Timothy E. Steward, in my capacity as President and Managing Director ofPrudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify withregard to the Company's role as Primary Servicer under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, (the "Agreement") dated as of December 1, 2014 pertainingto the above-referenced certificates, that:(i) a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during theperiod noted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreementduring the reporting period has been made under my supervision, and(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company hasfulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout the reportingperiod.

 

 

Effective as of 2/22/2017

/s/ Timothy E. StewardTimothy E. StewardPresident and Managing DirectorPrudential Asset Resources, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 296 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 296

Expressing the sense of Congress that secondary schools should consider 
                    starting school after 9:00 a.m.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 1998

 Ms. Lofgren submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that secondary schools should consider 
                    starting school after 9:00 a.m.

Whereas scientific studies indicate that adolescents experience hormonal changes 
        that keep them awake at night;
Whereas most secondary schools begin classes at 7:30 or earlier in the morning;
Whereas most teen crime occurs between 3:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon and an 
        earlier start would result in a later school day; and
Whereas many adolescents do not get enough sleep to realize their full academic 
        potential: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that secondary schools should begin 
classes after 9:00 in the morning.
                                 <all>
```
No. 11-1355.

#### 144942 Canada, Inc., dba Kaytel Video Distribution, et al. *v.*Jules Jordan Video, Inc., et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       BD
       
<S>                             <C>    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Jan-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  Feb-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    Oct-31-1997
<CASH>                          5,813,000
<RECEIVABLES>                   12,366,000
<SECURITIES-RESALE>             0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>           0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>             17,691,000
<PP&E>                          1,122,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  43,909,000
<SHORT-TERM>                    0
<PAYABLES>                      0
<REPOS-SOLD>                    0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>             0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>              4,617,000
<LONG-TERM>                     571,000
<COMMON>                        1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     114,000
<OTHER-SE>                      31,267,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    43,909,000
<TRADING-REVENUE>               913,000
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>            327,000
<COMMISSIONS>                   12,513,000
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>   914,000
<FEE-REVENUE>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<COMPENSATION>                  9,968,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 139,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (57,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Isaiah EDGER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-60560 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Paul David Roberts, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Susan Spears Bradley, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*472George Lowrey Lucas, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Isaiah Edger pled guilty to uttering counterfeit obligations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472, and was sentenced to 48 months of imprisonment, an upward variance from the Guidelines range. On appeal, Edger argues that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. We review sentences, whether inside or outside the Guidelines, for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. *Gall v. United*States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In reviewing an above-Guidelines sentence, we consider “the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range, to determine whether” the Section 3563(a) factors support the sentence. *United States v. Gerezano-Rosales,*692 F.3d 393, 400 (5th Cir. 2012).

In this case, the district court relied on the appropriate Section 3553(a) factors in determining that an upward variance was warranted, as its reasons addressed the advisory Guidelines range; the statutory penalty range; Edger’s history and characteristics; and the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of his offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and protect the public from further crifnes by Edger. Nothing suggests that the district court failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. *See United States v. Smith,*440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). We therefore defer to the district court’s determination that the Section 3653(a) factors, on the whole, warrant the variance and justify the extent of the upward variance imposed. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 49-53, 128 S.Ct. 586; *United States v. Key,*599 F.3d 469, 475 (5th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-50624 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ROBERT KEITH ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:97-CR-23-1

Before JOLLY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert Keith Adams, federal pris o n e r # 78734-080 moves this court for leave t o proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a n appeal of the d istrict court’s dismissal on jurisdictional g rounds of his motion to enforce plea a greement and correct clerical e rror in the judgment. He argues that the G o vernment breached the plea agreement b y allowing restitution i n a n amount greater than the amount t o which Adams agreed in the p l ea agreement. Further, he asserts that U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 22, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-50624 Document: 00512215804 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2013No. 12-50624

the d i s trict court retains jurisdiction to enforce a plea agreement a t any time; therefore, the court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was erroneous. A movant for IFP on appeal m us t s h o w t hat h e is a pauper a nd that the appeal is taken i n good faith. Carson v. Polley , 6 89 F .2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). This court’s inquiry into Adams’s good faith “is limited to whet h e r t h e appeal involves ‘legal p oints arguable on their merits (a n d t h e r e fore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). To the extent that Adams sought m odification of the r estitution order, the district court lacked jurisdiction to address the issue. S ee U n i t e d States v. Hatten , 167 F.3d 884, 887 n .5 (5th Cir. 1999); see United S tates v . Segler , 37 F.3d 1131, 1135 (5th Cir. 1994). Further, Federal Rule of Criminal P rocedure 36 is the appropriate veh i c l e f or changes that do n ot substantively a lter the orally announced sentence but instead correct errors in the written judgment. United States v. Spencer , 513 F.3d 490, 491-92 ( 5th Cir. 2008). The am o u nt of restitution announced at sentencing i s consistent with the amount stated in the judgment of conviction and sentence. Adams h as not established that h e will raise a nonfrivolo u s a p pellate issue. See Carson , 689 F.2d at 586. Accordingly, we DENY the motio n to proceed IFP on appeal, and we DISMISS Adams’s appeal as frivolous. See 5 T H C I R
. R

. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-50624 Document: 00512215804 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2013
No. 11-1443.

#### Rohr *v.*Indiana.

Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.
**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 on Form 10-Q (the “Quarterly Report”) of
      Emerald Dairy Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,
      2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
      I, Yang Yong Shan, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
      Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The
      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Registrant.




By:/s/ Yang Yong ShanYang
                Yong Shan
              Chairman,
                Chief Executive Officer and President
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
              Dated
                this 14thday of November, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         604,535
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,488,812
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,057
<INVENTORY>                                  1,463,469
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,599,514
<PP&E>                                       1,943,197
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,247,730
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,303,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,140,966
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       507,048
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,448,918
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,303,054
<SALES>                                      4,620,715
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,628,355
<CGS>                                        2,535,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,535,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,350,943
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                724,361
<INCOME-TAX>                                   298,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            425,761
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   425,761
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        

</TABLE>
#### IN RE: Rafael BURGOS, Juan Hancke, Evelyn Jara, Maria Hidalgo, Appellants

2017-1714

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 12, 2018

J. Mark Pohl, Pharmaceutical Patent Attorneys, LLC, Morristown, NJ, argued for appellants.

Amy J. Nelson, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Kakoli Caprihan, Thomas W. Krause.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Moore and Chen, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.