alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not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. 97-50618

Summary Calendar

BENNY OCHOA,

Pl aintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-94-CV-737

March 23, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Benny Ochoa appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social

Security’s denial of supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Ochoa

argues that there is no substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s finding that he can perform

light work. Having reviewed the entire record, we find that the decision was supported by substantial

evidence and the proper legal standards were used in evaluating the evidence. S ee Villa v. Sullivan

,

895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990); Ripley v. Chater , 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995).2

The Commissioner’s finding that Ochoa could perform light work was based in part on

Ochoa’s testimony that he could occasionally lift up to 20 pounds and in part on the medical record

which contained nothing showing that Ochoa was physically unable to perform light work. See 20

C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) (definition of light work); S elders v. Sullivan , 914 F.2d 614, 618 (5th Cir.

1990).

Ochoa argues that the Commissioner’s decision failed to evaluate his complaints of pain under

the criteria set forth in Social Security Ruling 88-13. S ee Anderson v. Sullivan , 887 F.2d 630, 633

(5th Cir. 1989). Contrary to his assertions, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered these

factors pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.929. There is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding

that Ochoa’s testimony regarding his functional limitations and pain was not supported by the medical

rec ord and was not credi bl e. S ee Falco v. Shalala , 27 F.3d 160, 163 (5th Cir. 1994); J ones v.

Heckler , 702 F.2d 616, 622 (5th Cir. 1983).

Finally, Ochoa has not given any authority for his assertion that a vocational expert is required

when availabilit

y o f jobs in the national economy is determined by application of the MedicalVocational

Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 2, table 2. When nonexertional

impairments do not significant ly affect a claimant’s residual functioning capacity, exclusive reliance

on the Guidelines is proper. S ee Selders

, 914 F.2d at 618; Dominick v. Bowen , 816 F.2d 130, 1333

(5th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.
| (logo) Rialto 

CAPITAL |  

  |
|-------------------------|----------------|

 

 

 

2014 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)

 

 

                Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of December 1, 2014 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as General Master Servicer, NCB, FSB as NCB Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB as NCB Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, and Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-LC18, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-LC18 **(WFCM 2014-LC18)**

 

                

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.        All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.        A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of December 30, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer                                  Date: March 5, 2015

           Adam Singer, Managing Director
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDPRESIDENT PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I,
Harold Blomquist, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Simtek Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Simtek Corporation.  /s/Harold
Blomquist Harold
BlomquistChief Executive Officer and President May
15, 2008
THIRD AMENDMENT TO

AGREEMENT OF SALE


 


THIS THIRD AMENDMENT
TO AGREEMENT OF SALE (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 1st day of November, 2013, between
BAY VIEW OF BOSTON ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (the “Seller”) and SENTIO-SLR BOSTON PORTFOLIO, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company (the “Buyer”).


 


RECITALS:


 


A.           Seller
and Buyer are parties to that certain Agreement of Sale dated September 18, 2013, as amended (the “Agreement”),
pursuant to which Seller agreed to sell, and Buyer agreed to purchase, certain real property located at 1380 Columbia Road, Boston,
Massachusetts, as more particularly described in the Agreement.


 


B.           Seller
and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


AGREEMENTS:


 


1.     Recitals, Definitions. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by
reference. Capitalized but undefined terms used in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.


 


2.     The
Definition of “Due Diligence Period” is hereby amended to read as follows:


 


Due Diligence
Period: The period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on 6:00 PM Eastern Time on November 5, 2013, during which time
Buyer may, at reasonable times with prior notice to Seller, investigate the financial, legal, operational, environmental and all
other aspects of the Property as Buyer may desire. Buyer acknowledges that Seller has produced all items requested by Buyer concerning
Due Diligence.


 


3.     Effect
of Amendment. To the extent any provisions contained herein conflict with the Agreement or any other agreements between
Seller and Buyer, oral or otherwise, the provisions contained herein shall supersede such conflicting provisions contained in the
Agreement or other agreements. Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect
and is in all events ratified, confirmed and approved.


 


4.     Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which, together,
shall constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of signatures by e-mail or facsimile shall be valid and binding.


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the date first above written.


 


	 	BUYER:
	 	 
	 	SENTIO-SLR BOSTON PORTFOLIO, LLC
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ John Mark Ramsey
	 	Name: John Mark Ramsey
	 	
        Its: Authorized Signatory 




 


	 	SELLER:
	 	 
	 	BAY VIEW OF BOSTON ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
	 	 
	 	By its General Partner
	 	SENIOR LIVING RESIDENCES, INC.
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Robert F. Larkin, Jr.
	 	Name: Robert F. Larkin, Jr.
	 	Title: President and Treasurer


 




    	2
Exhibit 33.7



|     |  |                                                               
|---- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | 303 E Wacker Drive, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60601 (312)
233-6440

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONS REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

For the calendar year ending December 31, 2015, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for Wells Fargo Bank(the
Servicer).

National Tax Search, LLC (NTS) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2015 and for the period from
January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR). NTS has used the servicing criteria
communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Only servicing criteria 1122 (d) (1)(ii), 1122 (d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122 (d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122 (d)2(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii)
(the Applicable Servicing Criteria) are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the SEC
Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTSs TaxQ system (the
Platform Transactions).

NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has
concluded that the NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to
Servicer



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Lori D. Eshoo           
|Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO
|January 18, 2016
#### IN RE C. C.

20170773

Supreme Court of Utah.

11-20-2017

20160448, 402 P.3d 17

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied.
No. 12-5499.

#### Thomas *v.*Parker et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
Mark W. Beddoes is the Acting Director, On-Site Inspection and Building 

Capacity Directorate, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) located 

on Fort Belvoir, Virginia. DTRA enables the Department of Defense, the 

U.S. Government, and international partners to counter and deter 

weapons of mass destruction and emerging threats.

Mr. Beddoes oversees the planning and implementation of U.S. arms 

control activities under numerous bilateral and multilateral treaties and 

agreements. He also provides oversight of international CWMD security 

cooperation and building partner capacity activities that advance DoD, 

interagency, and partner nation capability to counter WMD proliferation 

and prepare for and respond to CBRNE events. 

Mr. Beddoes is a retired U.S. Navy Commander and Naval Aviator with over 20 years of active 

service. He served in a variety of operational and staff assignments in the United States, Europe, 

and the Middle East. His final active duty assignment was to DTRA where he served as a Strategic 

Arms Reduction Treaty inspection team chief and as the Chief of the START/Nuclear Branch.

Following his military retirement in 2008, Mr. Beddoes returned to DTRA as the Deputy Chief of the 

Security Cooperation Branch, and from 2009 to 2014 was the Chief of the START/Nuclear Policy 

Branch. From 2015 to 2022, he served as the Chief of the Interagency Liaison and Treaty Support 

Department, where he oversaw a team of arms control and building partner capacity experts that 

advised the interagency policy community, conducted arms control training and support activities, 

and assisted with the planning and preparation for future agreements.

He holds a Master of Science in Operations Research from the Naval Postgraduate School and a 

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Mr. Beddoes is married to the former Luz Villanueva of Chesapeake, Virginia. They have three 

children and reside in Gainesville, VA.

August 2023

Distribution Statement A - Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 

BIOGRAPHY 

UNCLASSIFIED 

Mark W. Beddoes

Acting Director, On-Site Inspection and Building Capacity
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 137 Considered and Passed House (CPH)]

  2d Session
H. J. RES. 137

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 19, 1998

  Mr. Livingston introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Appropriations

                            October 19, 1998

   The Committee on Appropriations discharged; considered and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(c) of Public 
Law 105-240 is further amended by striking ``October 20, 1998'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``October 21, 1998''.
                                 <all>
```
H. J. Res. 101

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1998, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(3)

of Public Law 105–46 is further amended by striking ‘‘November

7, 1997’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘November 9, 1997’’, and

each provision amended by sections 122 and 123 of such public

law shall be applied as if ‘‘November 9, 1997’’ was substituted

for ‘‘October 23, 1997’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
June 24, 2015 

Mr. Carson Wade Lee 

President 

Turbine Aircraft Logistics, LLC 

5715 Oak Hollow Lane 

Oviedo, FL 32765 

Dear Mr. Lee: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 21(h); §§ 43.13, 45.29(f), 91.121, 61.56, 61.57, 91.155(b), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

We entered your April 13, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Turbine Aircraft Logistics, 

LLC into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1150), but we are unable to process your request 

any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the 

following: 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
No. 11-1367.

#### Lopez et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 20451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07384]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Alzheimer's Disease Drug Development.
    Date: May 26, 2022.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Alexander Parsadanian, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building 2C/212, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9666, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88f8e9fafbe9ece9e6e1e9e6e9c8e6e1e9a6e6e1e0a6efe7fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1c1d0c3c2d0d5d0dfd8d0dfd0f1dfd8d09fdfd8d99fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 1, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-07384 Filed 4-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
*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 circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20525

Summary Calendar

JOE B. RAMON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GILBERT F. CASELLAS, Chairman, 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 97-CV-1842

November 23, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE , and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant,JoeB. Ramon appealsthe district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. We

review the district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration under an abuse of discretion standard. See

Midland West Corp. v. F.D.I.C., 911 F.2d 1141, 1145 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1990)(Rule 59(e) motion); Williams v.

Brown & Root, Inc., 828 F.2d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 1987)(Rule 60(b) motion). We find that through the exercise

of reasonable diligence, Ramon could have prosecuted his case; therefore, we affirmthe judgment of the district

court.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-84,635-01

EX PARTE GILBERT REYES MORELOS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 3962-A IN THE 50TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM KNOX COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of intoxication

manslaughter and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends, among other things, that he was denied his right to a direct appeal

through no fault of his own. See Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Ex parte

Riley, 193 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). His direct appeal was dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. Morelos v. State, No. 11-15-00076-CR (Tex. App.—Eastland Apr. 23, 2015) (not

designated for publication). There is no response from trial or appellate counsel regarding the claim,

and there are no findings from the trial court. 
2

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial and appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim that he was denied a direct

appeal. The trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant

was denied his right to a meaningful appeal through no fault of his own. The trial court shall also

make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the

disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: April 6, 2016

Do not publish
#### STATE v. REIGELSPERGER

20170579

Supreme Court of Utah.

11-14-2017

20140773, 400 P.3d 1127

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied.