alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 38 (Friday, February 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 9012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4185]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 
20549-0213.

Extension: Form F-10; OMB Control No. 3235-0380; SEC File No. 270-
334.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management Budget 
for extension and approval.
    Form F-10 (17 CFR 239.40) is a registration statement under the 
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) that is used by certain 
Canadian ``substantial issuers'' (those issuers with at least 36 
calendar months of reporting history with a securities commission in 
Canada and a market value of common stock of at least C$360 million and 
an aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of at 
least C$75 million). The purpose of the information collection is to 
facilitate cross-border offerings by specified Canadian issuers. We 
estimate that Form F-10 takes 25 hours per response and is filed by 75 
respondents. We further estimate that 25% of the 25 hours per response 
(6.25 hours) is prepared by the issuer for an annual reporting burden 
of 469 hours (6.25 hours per response x 78 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed 
collections of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Boucher, Director/
CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 
General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#78282a3927351911141a1700380b1d1b561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f5a5a7b4aab8949c99979a8db5869096db929a83">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 23, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-4185 Filed 2-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

Reference is herebymade to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1,2017, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer,RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as General Special Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVEBANK, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer and as NCB Special Servicer, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, WILMINGTON TRUST,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as OperatingAdvisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2017-BNK7 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President ofCommercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the period fromSeptember 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and ofits performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

 

2.       Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February2018.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive VicePresident 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3147

_____________________________
K

YLE R AY H IMES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for N assau County

. Robert M. Foster , Judge

.

October 15 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

. Appellant, Kyle Ray Himes, appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Appe llant asserted several grounds for relief based on newly discovered evidence. The lower court denied all such claims as successive in its order rendered on July 17, 2017. However, because the lower court did not include attachments of record evidence which conclusively refuted Appellant’s claims, we

reverse.

“To uphold the trial court's summary denial of claims raised in a 3.850 motion, the claims must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record.” Peede v. State

, 748 So. 2d 253

,2 257 ( Fla. 1999). “On appeal from the denial of relief, unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).

Here, Appellant’s claims appear to be facially valid, and they are not conclusively refuted by the record. In fact, the State concedes error. We therefore reverse the lower court’s summary denial of Appellant’s claims of newly discovered e vidence and remand for further proceedings.

R EVERSED and R EMANDED

.
M AKAR , O STERHAUS , and J AY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

______________ _______________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee.
No. 10-1115.

#### Javier Cavazos, Acting Warden, Petitioner v. Shirley Ree Smith.

565 U.S. 1149, 132 S. Ct. 1077,

181 L. Ed. 2d 794,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 559.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 1, 132 S. Ct. 2, 181 L. Ed. 2d 311, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 7603.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3253

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Craig Arthur Schmacker, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 2, 2010

Filed: June 7, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing a waiver of his right to appeal,

Craig Schmacker pleaded guilty to unlawfully distributing child pornography, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). The district court1

 sentenced

Schmacker to 188 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. On appeal,

his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence on various grounds, and arguing that

the appeal waiver should be set aside because the government violated the plea

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.
agreement by agreeing with the presentence report that Schmacker should receive an

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(E).

In the plea agreement, Schmacker waived his right to appeal all issues related

to his plea agreement, his conviction, and his sentence, as long as the sentence was

within the maximum statutory penalties. The maximum prison term for Schmacker’s

offense is 240 months. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1). We will enforce the appeal

waiver in this case, because the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the record

shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal waiver

would not constitute a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d

886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforceability of appeal waiver); United States

v. Sisco, 576 F.3d 791, 796 (8th Cir. 2009) (considerations for knowing and voluntary

waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.

2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). We reject Schmacker’s

argument that the government breached the plea agreement: the agreement explicitly

indicated that the parties had not agreed on the enhancement’s applicability, and that

the government could make whatever argument it deemed appropriate at sentencing. 

See United States v. Sanchez, 508 F.3d 456, 460 (8th Cir. 2007) (plea agreements are

contractual in nature and should be interpreted according to general contract

principles).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues that are not covered by the appeal

waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this

appeal.

______________________________

-2-
No. 11-494.

#### John Kinsel, Petitioner v. Burl Cain, Warden.

565 U.S. 1094, 132 S. Ct. 854,

181 L. Ed. 2d 551,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8873.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 647 F.3d 265.
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 20146 STANDARD 25.01 2.73 8.66

Tolerance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF

DLA/NAVY SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT June 22, 2020

Fabric Nomenclature CLOTH, 100% WOOL (WASHABLE) NU-PD 19031

Shade Number DRAB BROWN 3762 Piece/Roll Number 20146
No. 11-7511.

#### Steven D. Green, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1133, 132 S. Ct. 1056,

181 L. Ed. 2d 774,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 366.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 654 F.3d 637.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S (I) CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND (II)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED
IN THE FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         276,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,899,000<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,465,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,539,000
<PP&E>                                     218,381,000<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             272,002,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,705,000
<BONDS>                                     99,360,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       13,286,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,412,000<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               272,002,000
<SALES>                                     40,280,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,280,000
<CGS>                                       37,951,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,951,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,441,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,096,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,229,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (467,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (762,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0<F4>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F4>
<FN>
<F1>Amount represents net accounts receivable.
<F2>Amount represents net property, plant, and equipment.
<F3>Amount represents additional paid in capital and retained earnings.
<F4>Only required for public equity offerings.
</FN>


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 38 (Friday, February 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 8934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4175]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-698-000]


New Mexico MSW1 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

February 20, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
New Mexico MSW1 LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is March 12, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#387e7d6a7b77565451565d6b4d4848574a4c785e5d4a5b165f574e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e686b7c6d61404247404b7d5b5e5e415c5a6e484b5c4d00494158">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-4175 Filed 2-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Paula Tomasi

Appellate case number: 01-15-00276-CV

Trial court case number: 2012-03438

Trial court: 245th District Court of Harris County

On March 26, 2015, relator, Paula Tomasi, filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

requesting an order requiring the trial court to rule on a motion relator filed in the trial 

court. The Court requests that the real party in interest, Diego David Tomasi, respond to 

the petition for writ of mandamus. It is ordered that the real party in interest file its 

response on or before April 15, 2015.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

  Acting individually 

Date: March 26, 2015
#### Mrs. Annie Bollman, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Fred Sanders, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed June 1, 1926.

*B. B .Moseley,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*T. E. Price,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the sáme is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
19 December 2014 *********************

NSN: 8960-01-527-8378 (RBB) *MONOGRAPH M7R1

 **********************

Item: Raspberry beverage bases (Powdered), Sweetened with non-nutritive sweetener, Not 

fortified 

Document: A-A-20098, Beverage Bases (Powdered) and PKG&QAP

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 1-2 Component Classification: Ancillary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

Dehydrated product: Uniformly blended, free-flowing, homogenous dry mixture

Hydrated product: Clear to slightly cloudy, sediment-free, color typical of raspberry.

Odor: Hydrated product: Typical of raspberry.

Flavor: Hydrated product: Typical of raspberry.

Texture:

Dehydrated product: Free of hard lumps.

Hydrated product: Fully dissolve within two minutes with constant stirring or shaking.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance:

Dehydrated product: Lumpy or caked, not free flowing. 

Hydrated product: Coagulated, excessive sediment significantly affecting aesthetic, 

appearance or flavor.

Odor: Burnt or scorched.

Flavor: Oxidized or any other flavor not typical of the type of beverage.

Texture:

Dehydrated product: Lumpy or caked, not free flowing. 

Hydrated product: Coagulated, excessive sediment.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

Prepare beverage in accordance with package instructions. Product should dissolve completely within 

approximately two minutes.

Special Notes

In the rehydrated product, if slight sedimentation is observed but the odor and flavor are normal, do not 

score the sedimentation as a defect during surveillance inspection; make note of it in the narrative for 

future use. Coagulation may occur if the product has had temperature abuse. Coagulation results in 

clumps of granules that do not readily dissolve when product is reconstituted and tend to float in 

suspension.
No. 11-5129.

#### Harry Tackett, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 1062, 132 S. Ct. 757,

181 L. Ed. 2d 489,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8629.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 11-6857.

#### Refugio Valadez, Petitioner v. Fred Britten, Warden.

565 U.S. 1069, 132 S. Ct. 783,

181 L. Ed. 2d 501,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8638.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Wesley Whiting, certify that:

1. I have reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Dynadapt  Systems,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of October 31, 2003; and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  December 9, 2004


/s/Wesley Whiting
- -----------------------
Wesley Whiting,
President