alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Leah Nivison,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the GS MortgageSecurities Trust 2015-GC28 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport 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 asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asSpecial Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Custodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, asOperating Advisor, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., asServicing Function Participant, National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant, and Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank, asPrimary Servicer.

 

 

 

Dated: March 26, 2020

 

 

/s/ Leah Nivison

 

 

Chief ExecutiveOfficer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
U. S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

 OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100 

 Washington, DC. 20005 

July 20, 2009 

Steve Pearson, Vice President, Certification 

Election Systems & Software Sent via mail and e-mail

11208 John Galt Blvd. 

Omaha, NE 68137 

Re: Initial Decision on Certification

Dear Mr. Steve Pearson, 

This correspondence is to inform you that Election Systems & Software’s Unity 3.2.0.0. 

has completed the initial step towards receipt of an EAC certification. This Initial 

Decision on Certification represents an EAC acknowledgement that the Unity 3.2.0.0 has 

successfully completed conformance testing to the 2002 Voting System Standards (VSS). 

However, as provided in §5.9 of the EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification 

Program Manual (Certification Manual), for an Initial Decision to become final and to 

issue a certification number and a Certificate of Conformance, a manufacturer must 

provide documentation to the Program Director verifying that the trusted build has been 

performed, software has been deposited in an approved repository, and system 

identification tools are available to election officials. A manufacturer must submit a 

letter, signed by both its management representative and an iBeta Quality Assurance 

official, stating (under penalty of law) that it has: 

1. Performed a trusted build consistent with the requirements of §5.6 of the EAC’s 

Certification Manual; 

2. Deposited software consistent with §5.7 of the EAC’s Certification Manual; 

3. Created and made available system identification tools consistent with §5.8 of the 

EAC’s Certification Manual (a copy and description of the system identification 

tool developed must be provided with the letter); and 

4. Upon a final decision to grant certification, the manufacturer accepts the 

certification and all conditions placed on the certification. 

Upon receipt of documentation demonstrating the successful completion of the 

requirements above and recommendation of the Program Director, I will issue an Agency 

Decision granting certification and provide Election Systems & Software’s Unity 3.2.0.0. 

with a certification number and Certification of Conformance. 
If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact 

Brian Hancock or Matthew Masterson at your earliest convenience. I thank you in 

advance for your time and attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

 07/20/2009

Thomas R. Wilkey Date 

Executive Director 

Decision Authority 

Cc: Brian Hancock, U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Carolyn Coggins, iBeta Quality Assurance
# C_2021278EN.01006401.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/64

---

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (RENŠKI HRAM)

(Case T-286/21)

(2021/C 278/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark RENŠKI HRAM — European Union trade mark No 15 297 302

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2021 in Case R 679/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present application;

| — | reform the contested decision in such manner to uphold the applicant’s appeal and reform the decision issued in cancellation procedure No 26 907 C of 17 March 2020 in such manner, to uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested trade mark RENŠKI HRAM and to declare the contested trade mark invalid in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reform the contested decision in such manner to uphold the applicant’s appeal and reform the decision issued in cancellation procedure No 26 907 C of 17 March 2020 in such manner, to uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested trade mark RENŠKI HRAM and to declare the contested trade mark invalid in its entirety;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

| — | remit the case back to the EUIPO for further deliberation; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case back to the EUIPO for further deliberation;

| — | order EUIPO to pay all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay all costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Application to Amend 

Section 333 Exemption No. 11306 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-1023 

March 18, 2016 

Petitioner: 

Hawk Aerial, LLC 

Kevin J. Gould, CEO 

1212 Victoria Drive 

Saint Helena, CA 94574 

Cell: 425-218-3723 

Email: kevin.gould@hawkaerial.com 

Website: www.hawkaerial.com 

Greetings, 

By letter from the FAA dated April 8, 2015, an exemption was granted to Hawk Aerial for relief under Section 333. That 

letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 11306 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-1023. By FAA letter dated June 3, 

2015, the above exemption was amended to include the DJI Phantom 3 models. By FAA letter dated October 23, 2015, 

the above exemption was amended to include the DJI Inspire, G4Skycrane and Prenav 1.0 models. By FAA letter dated 

February 18, 2016, the above exemption was amended to include the DJI Matrice, Autonomous Avionics SkyTractor and 

Airborne Robotics AIR6 models. 

Hawk Aerial hereby requests that the exemption so granted and amended, be now further amended to include all UAS 

makes and models that have previously been approved by the Secretary of Transportation under Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. UAS that have been previously approved by the Secretary are found on the List 

of Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) under Section 333. The list, which is updated monthly, is posted at 

www.regulations.gov under docket number FAA-2007-3330. Hawk Aerial requests that it be authorized to operate any 

UAS on that list, when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload while this exemption is valid. 

Hawk Aerial offers and incorporates by reference all of the data and analyses included in prior grants of exemption for the 

makes and models found on the List of Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) under Section 333, such as Exemption 

No. 15395, granted to UAV Solutions Inc. on March 15, 2016, under regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-5472. 

The findings, rationale, conclusions and conditions contained in Hawk Aerial's FAA's Exemption No. 11306, as amended, 

apply to this application to include in Exemption No. 11306 all UAS makes and models that have previously been 

approved by the Secretary of Transportation under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any additional information that is 

required. 

Si~~~r/pwJ Kevin J. Gould 

Airman Certificate #2830326 

CEO, Hawk Aerial LLC 

cc: ATTN: The Office of Rulemaking 

FAA Headquarters, Building lOA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20951
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20632

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TALMADGE JENNINGS WHEAT,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-310-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Talmadge Jennings Wheat appeals his guilty-plea conviction

of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). After Wheat was sentenced in

this case, he was sentenced in a state court on state charges. 

The district court did not impose Wheat’s federal sentence to run

concurrently with his subsequent state sentence. Wheat argues

that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was
No. 03-20632

-2-

induced by his counsel’s belief that his state and federal

sentences would run concurrently. 

Wheat has failed to show that the district court, the

federal prosecutor, or his federal court trial counsel induced

him to plead guilty by representing to him that his federal

sentence would run concurrently with any state sentence he might

later receive. The validity and timing of Wheat’s federal

sentence are not affected by the failure of his state counsel,

the state prosecutor, or the state court to impose or execute his

state sentence properly. See Opela v. United States, 415 F.2d

231, 232 (5th Cir. 1969). Thus, Wheat has not shown that his

plea was not knowing and voluntary, and the district court did

not plainly err in failing to impose his federal sentence

concurrently with his anticipated state sentence. See United

States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789 (5th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


        In connection with the Quarterly Report of JB Oxford Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christopher L. Jarratt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/  Christopher L. Jarratt
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
August 15, 2005
U. S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION VOTING SYSTEM TESTING AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

 1225 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100 

 Washington, DC. 20005 

November 18, 2008 

Ms. Sue L. Munguia 

Director of Certification 

Election Systems and Software (ES&S) 

11208 John Galt Boulevard 

Omaha, NE 68137 

Dear Ms. Munguia, 

We are in receipt of your October 31, 2008 letter (attached) regarding your request to change the 

lead Voting System Test Laboratory from SysTest Laboratories (SysTest) to iBeta Quality 

Assurance (iBeta). As you note in your letter the EAC has recently suspend SysTest 

Laboratories, Inc., due to the suspension of its accreditation by the National Voluntary Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (NVLAP). Section 4.3.1.2. of the EAC’s Voting System Testing and 

Certification Program Manual allows the Program Director of the EAC to grant permission to a 

manufacturer to change VSTL’s when good cause is shown for the change. This decision is at the 

sole discretion of the Program Director and is made after careful consideration of the facts 

leading to the request. 

In this case, SysTest has been suspended by both NVLAP and the EAC. Because of this 

suspension, SysTest is not currently eligible to test voting systems under the EAC’s program. 

Given these facts I find that there is good cause to allow Election Solutions & Software (ES&S) 

to change the lead VSTL responsible for the testing of the Unity 3.2.0.0 voting system from 

SysTest Laboratories to iBeta Quality Assurance. Your amended application for testing has been 

accepted and the testing record will reflect this change of VSTL. 

Please be aware that per section 4.3.1.2. iBeta Quality Assurance is now the lead VSTL 

responsible for the testing of the Unity 3.2.0.0 system and as such cannot be changed as the lead 

VSTL without the express written permission of the EAC Program Director. 

Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Brian J. Hancock 

Director, Testing and Certification
No. 11-1227.

#### Snelling *v.*Haynes et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2021128EN.01004802.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/48

---

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (Beverage Analytics)

(Case T-113/21)

(2021/C 128/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Team Beverage AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Beverage Analytics — Application for registration No 18 101 437

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2020 in Case R 727/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal brought by the applicant against the defendant’s decision of 21 February 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal brought by the applicant against the defendant’s decision of 21 February 2020;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Total Polling Locations:

Election Day:7 2,326 

Early Voting:8 -- 

Mail Balloting

Mail Ballots Transmitted10 Mail Ballots Returned11

935,659 905,132 (96.7% of 

transmitted) 

Mail Ballots Counted12 Mail Ballots Rejected13

899,695 (99.4% of 

returned)

5,437 (0.6% of 

returned) 

Mail Voting Policies 

No excuse is required for mail voting14

Does not conduct all-mail elections15

Some voters can register as permanent absentee16

EAVS Jurisdictions

116

Total Registered Voters as of 

Nov. 3, 20201

4,338,133 

Registration Forms Received2*

690,757 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3*

381,716 

2020 EAVS Data Brief: Missouri

 Voter Registration

4.8%

8.5%

13.7%

35.0%

38.0%

Other

In-Person

Mail, Email, Fax

Motor Vehicle Dept.

Online

Source of Registration Applications4

 Voter Turnout  Election Technology

In-Person 

Election 

Day Voters 

2,288,607

71.5%

Mail Voters 

899,695

28.1%

In-Person 

Early Voters 

0

0.0%

Other Mode 

13,156

0.4%

Voters Participating By Mode5

109 107

84

3 1 0

Scanner Ballot

Marking

Device

Electronic

Poll

Books

DRE with

VVPAT

Hand

Count

DRE w/o

VVPAT

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9



Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov. 

The data shown are certified as final by state election authorities. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available, ” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2018 

general election to close of 

registration for 2020 general 

election. 

1 A1a of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a. InPerson is A4b. Online is A4c. 

Motor Vehicle Dept. is A4d. 

Other is the sum of A4e–A4l. 

Denominator is A3a. 

5 In-Person Election Day Voters 

is F1b. Mail Voters is F1d+F1g. 

In-Person Early Voters is F1f. 

Other Mode is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Denominator is sum of F1b–

F1h. 

6 F1a of EAVS. Denominator 

is citizen voting age 

population (CVAP). 

7 D3a of EAVS. 

8 D4a of EAVS. 

9 F3a–d, F5a, F6a, F7a, F8a, 

and F11a of EAVS. 

10 C1a of EAVS. 

11 C1b of EAVS. 

12 C3a of EAVS. 

13 C4a of EAVS. 

14Q17 of Policy Survey. 

15 Q18 and Q18a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

Turnout 

68.8%

6
No. 11-1230.

#### Delander *v.*Hubbard, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2010-06

 (DRE Accessibility Requirements and Other Accessible Voting Stations)

Date: 

June 18, 2010 

Question(s): 

Shall ballot marking devices be tested to the same accessibility standards of DRE machines under the 

guidelines found in Section 3 of the VVSG? 

Section of Standards or Guidelines: 

2005 VVSG, v1.0, Volume I, Section 3 - Usability and Accessibility Requirements 

Background: 

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA), Section 301 (a)(3)(B), requires the use of at least one 

direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system or other voting system equipped for individuals 

with disabilities at each polling place. HAVA requires that the voting process shall be accessible 

to individuals with disabilities in such a manner that provides the same opportunity for access 

and participation, including privacy and independence, as for other voters. The voting process 

includes access to the polling place, instructions on how to vote, initiating the voting session, 

making ballot selections, review of the ballot, final submission of the ballot, and getting help 

when needed. 

As a result of the accessibility requirement, voting system vendors have developed ballot 

marking devices (BMD) to serve as accessible voting stations for individuals with disabilities. 

The BMD is used with an optical scan voting systems in a polling place in lieu of an accessible 

DRE system. These ballot marking devices provide an accessible user interface for optical scan 

ballots in order to meet the usability and accessibility requirements. 

Conclusion: 

Any voting system seeking certification as an Accessible Voting Station must be tested to and 

meet the accessibility requirements of the VVSG v1.0, Volume I, Section 3, Usability and 

Accessibility Requirements. These requirements apply equally to DREs and/or accessible voting 

stations, such as ballot marking devices, seeking such certification. 

Effective Date: 

For all systems without an approved test plan.
#### DISCOVER BANK v. COLLINS, D.

1224 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/20/2017

No. 2598 of 2008 GD, No. 521 DSB 2016 (Fayette)

Vacated/Remanded
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of JB Oxford  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Christopher  L.  Jarratt,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/  Christopher L. Jarratt
Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2004