alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Wells Fargo CommercialMortgage Securities, Inc. 

375 PARK AVE FL 2

Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

NEW YORK, New York 10152-0002

 

Re:          Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities,Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-LC18

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of December 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)           A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performanceunder the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b)          To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

  

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edgar Hector RODRIGUEZ-FALCON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40544 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 1, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Edgar Hector Rodriguez-Falcon, Pro Se

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edgar Hector Rodriguez-Falcon has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California, 386*U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez-Falcon has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair- evaluation of Rodriguez-Falcon’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to *243consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

Rodriguez-Falcon also argues that the Bureau of Prisons failed to credit him for time served in jail before his conviction. The method for computing a federal prisoner’s sentence is controlled by 18 U.S.C. § 3585, but responsibility for calculating detention credit lies with the Attorney General, through the BOP, and not the courts. *United States v. Wilson,*503 U.S. 329, 337, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992). Before appealing his sentence calculation, Rodriguez-Falcon must first seek administrative review through the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program. *See United States v. Setser,*607 F.3d 128, 133 (5th Cir. 2010). Once Rodriguez-Falcon “has exhausted his administrative remedies, he may file a pro se petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the BOP’s computation of his sentence.” *Id.*at 133 n.3 (quotation marks and modification omitted).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rodriguez-Falcon’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for'appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

**Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### COM. v. WOO, R.

214 WDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/12/2017

CP-65-CR-0003290-1994 (Westmore-land)

Affirmed
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**  D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2015, byand among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, MIDLANDLOAN  SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as GeneralSpecial Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer,NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE  LLC,  as  Trust Advisor,  WELLS FARGO  BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Certificate Administrator, as TaxAdministrator, and Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asTrustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2015-C26 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the General Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 throughDecember 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performanceper the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicer has fulfilled allof its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
NEON Systems, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 of NEON Systems, Inc. of our reports dated June 27, 2002 relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of NEON Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
March 31, 2002, and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2002, and related schedule,
which reports appear in the March 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of NEON
Systems, Inc.


KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas

December 2, 2002
Exhibit 35.4

ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC27

The undersigned, David Co, a Director of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as the Trustee in its capacity as Custodian (a Certifying Servicer)
under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 1, 2015 (the Agreement), by and among, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland
Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and Paying Agent, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as
Trustee, here by certifies in accordance with Section 10.08 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicers activities from February 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the reporting period) and of such Certifying Servicers performance under the Agreement has
been made under such officers supervision and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | That, as to the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS as Trustee
in its capacity as Custodian/s/ David CoBY: David CoTitle: DirectorDate: March 1, 2016
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARJORIE ANN GARLAND,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3764

[October 31, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Lawrence M. Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

16000591CFAXMX.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Karen E. Ehrlich, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6662

MARCUS ALLEN MCFADDEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CO S. BARTON; CO D. HOFFMAN; CO S. BOGGS,

Defendants - Appellees,

v.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Party-in-Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:17-cv-02582-ELH)

Submitted: October 12, 2018 Decided: October 18, 2018

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Allen McFadden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Allen McFadden appeals the district court’s order granting summary 

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. On appeal, we confine our review to the 

issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 

170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). In his brief, McFadden argues only that the district court erred 

in denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find 

no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to deny counsel. See Miller v. 

Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (standard of review); Whisenant v. Yuam, 

739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (requiring exceptional circumstances to support

appointment of counsel in civil cases), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. 

Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment. We deny as moot McFadden’s motion to voluntarily dismiss 

the appeal. 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
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Julius BALLOW, Petitioner

No. 410 EAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 8, 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Alowance of Appeal is DENIED.
# Pell Grants

- U.S. Department of Education Releases New Data Highlighting How the Simplified, Streamlined, and Redesigned Better FAFSA® Form Will Help Deliver Maximum Pell Grants to 1.5 Million More Students The U.S. Department of Education (Department) today released new state-by-state data and details showing that the simplified, streamlined, and redesigned 2024–25 Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form will help 610,000 new students from low-income backgrounds receive Federal Pell Grants.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5054]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. 96-ACE-23]


Amendment to Class E Airspace, York, NE

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amend the Class E airspace area at York Municipal 
Airport, York, Nebraska. The effect of this rule is to provide 
additional controlled airspace for aircraft executing Standard 
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at the York Municipal Airport.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC March 27, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Operations Branch, ACE-530C, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, 
Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 426-3408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on January 6, 1997 
(62 FR 607). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, was received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on March 27, 1997. No adverse comments were received, 
and thus this notice confirms that this final rule will become 
effective on that date.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on February 13, 1997.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 97-5054 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 DECEMBER 4, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-10024

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00661-CV-CG-M

SUZANNE LEFRERE, 

Personal Representative of the

Estate of Ross Paul Yates, deceased, 

ELAINE GARNER, 

Personal Representative of the

Estate of Ross Paul Yates, deceased, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

versus

JORGE QUEZADA, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

Baldwin County Commission, 

James B. Johnson, 

Steve Arthur, 

Defendants. 
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(December 4, 2009)

Before CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and DOWD, District Judge. *

CARNES, Circuit Judge:

We recently issued an opinion certifying to the Alabama Supreme Court this

question of state law: “Are jailers, like sheriffs and their deputies, absolutely

immune from state claims for money damages based on actions taken within the

scope of their employment?” LeFrere v. Quezada, 582 F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 

2009). We did so because we needed to know whether the Erie-guess we made

twelve years ago in Lancaster v. Monroe County, 116 F.3d 1419, 1431 (11th Cir.

1997), that jailers were entitled to that immunity was an accurate statement of

Alabama law. LeFrere, 582 F.3d at 1268. Only seven days after we issued our

opinion certifying that question, the answer came from the Alabama Supreme

Court in another case. See Ex parte Shelley, — So. 3d —, Nos. 1080588,

1080863, 2009 WL 2997498 (Ala. Sept. 18, 2009).

 Honorable David D. Dowd, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of *

Ohio, sitting by designation. 

2
 Because of the Shelley decision, we now know that our Lancaster decision

is not an accurate statement of Alabama law. We now know that jailers are not

entitled to absolute state immunity under Art. I, § 14 of the Alabama Constitution. 

Because that is all we need to know to decide this appeal, the Alabama Supreme

Court quite understandably and politely declined to answer our certified question

in light of its Shelly decision. Quezada v. LeFrere, No. 1081741 (Ala. Dec. 1,

2009). The Shelly decision is the answer to our question. 

Because the Shelley decision effectively overrules our Lancaster decision

on the issue of absolute immunity for Alabama jailers facing state law claims,

Officer Quezada’s motion to dismiss on that ground was properly denied. 

AFFIRMED.

3
2018 EAVS Data Brief: Wisconsin EAVS Jurisdictions 

1,850 

 Voter Registration 

Total Registered Voters, 

Nov. 20181 

3,442,004 

1 A1a of EAVS 

Registration Forms Received, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20182 

685,702 

2 A3a of EAVS 

New Voters Registered, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20183 

343,667 

3 A3b of EAVS 

Sources of Registration Forms4 

4 A4a-l of EAVS 

Mail/Fax/Email 24,132 

In-Person 83,610 

Online 156,503 

Motor Vehicle Office 0 

Public Assistance 

Office 0 

Disability Office 0 

Military Recruitment 

Office 0 

Other Non-NVRA 

Office 0 

Registration Drives 2,303 

Other Sources or 

Not Categorized 419,154 

 Voter Turnout 

Voters Participating by Mode5 

By Mail 

147,051 

6% 

In-Person Early In-Person E-Day 427,415 2,109,247 16% 78% 

Other Mode 

4,628 

0% 

5 In-person Election Day 

voters is F1b. By-mail voters 

is F1d+F1g. In-person early 

voters is F1f. Other mode is 

F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Total Turnout:6 2,688,341 

6 F1a of EAVS 

Provisional Voters:7 58 

7 F1e of EAVS 

UOCAVA Voters:8 3,264 

8 F1c of EAVS 

Election Technology 

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9 

1,079 

955 896 

822 

0 

DRE w/o DRE with Ballot Scanner Hand Electronic 

VVPAT VVPAT Marking Count Poll Book 

Device 

8 



9 F3a-d, F5a-F8a, and 

F11a of EAVS 

Election Policies 

✔ Has online voter registration10 

10 Q6 of Policy Survey 

✔ Has a form of same-day voter registration (SDR)11 

11 Q7 of Policy Survey 

Has all-mail elections statewide12 

Has all-mail elections in certain jurisdictions12 

12 Q9a of Policy Survey 

✔ Allows voters to register as permanent absentee 

voters13 

13 Q10 of Policy Survey Requires excuse for by-mail voting14 

Requires excuse for in-person early or in-person 14 Q8 of Policy Survey 

absentee voting15 15 Q12a of Policy Survey 

Uses vote centers16 16 Q13 of Policy Survey 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at 

www.eac.gov. 

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

are shown as zeroes.
No. 11-10343.

#### Nelson *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32
                                                                      ----------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                 PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (ACTING)
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Douglas Mitchell, 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-QSB for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2003 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-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Simtek Corporation.

/s/ Douglas Mitchell

Douglas Mitchell
Chief Executive Officer, President and
Chief Financial Officer (acting)
August 13, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,788,420
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,331,151
<ALLOWANCES>                                   125,467
<INVENTORY>                                  1,013,317
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,438,956
<PP&E>                                       1,854,503
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,626,939)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,715,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,367,568
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       287,452
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,760,875
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,847,749
<SALES>                                      3,341,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,341,279
<CGS>                                        1,824,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,166,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (13,926)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,843
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                188,669
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,360
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            178,309
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   178,309
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>