alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Wells Fargo Bank, NA
WELLS                                              Document Custody
FARGO                                              1015-10th Avenue SE
                                                   Minneapolis, MN 55014

          ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA

Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
(the "Company") is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company has determined that the
servicing criteria are applicable in regards to the servicing platform as of
and for the period as follows:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed
securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after
January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides document custody services,
excluding any publicly issued transactions issued by any government sponsored
entity (the "Platform").

Applicable Servicing Criteria: The servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d)(1)(iv),1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities
performed by the Company with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable
Servicing Criteria"). Management of the Company has determined that all other
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the
Platform.

Period: As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2007 (the
"Period").

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the
following assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

1.  The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria.

2.  The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria. In performing this assessment, the Company used the criteria set
forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122
of Regulation AB.

3.  Based on such assessment, as of and for the Period, the Company has
complied, in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation
report with respect to the Company's assessment of compliance as of and for
the Period.


                                WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

                                By:/s/Shari Gillund
                                   -----------------------------------

                                Its: Senior Vice President


                                Dated: February 29, 2008
Shukel MUTCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3593

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION

(Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350)



The undersigned hereby certifies
that, to his knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by First Citizens Bancorporation, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition at June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, and the results of operations of the Company for the
quarters ended June 30, 2005 and June 30, 2004.



|                     |  |                         |  | 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|Date: August 9, 2005 |  | /s/ Jim B. Apple        |  | 
|                     |  | Jim B. Apple            |  | 
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|                     |  |                        
|Date: August 9, 2005 |  | /s/ Craig L. Nix        |  | 
|                     |  | Craig L. Nix            |  | 
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0001023291
<NAME> TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   18,546,576
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  4,018,876
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,731,705
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     2,063,792
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,360,949
<COMMON>                                     5,592,383
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,304,578
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               6,865,349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          843,575
<PREFERRED>                                    190,055
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         8,775,071
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              39,961
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>               2,319,507
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  801,401
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               6,526,030
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               26,360,949
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    2,498,666
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            74,636
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,073,030
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,073,030
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        425,636
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (1,750)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 423,886
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       222,621
<NET-INCOME>                                   126,629
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  126,629
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       135,568
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      100,485
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         486,648
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-59984 and Form S-8 Nos. 333-47951, 333-47967, 333-38426,
333-51175, 333-95367, 333-56376, 333-75164, and 333-56378) of Applied Films
Corporation and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated July 24, 2003,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Applied
Films Corporation included in Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report (Form
10-K/A) for the year ended June 28, 2003.



| | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
| | ---------------------

Denver, Colorado
September 12, 2003
Devon A. BROWN, Appellant, v. Kali D. BROWN, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1706

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 19, 2019

Devon A. Brown, in proper person.

Kali D. Brown, in proper person.

Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Devon A. Brown, sued the appellee, Kali D. Brown (the mother of their minor children) for the allegedly-unauthorized use of his Social Security number, violation of his constitutional privacy rights, and identity theft. The appellant's pro se complaint sought $ 150,000.00 in compensatory damages. The face of the complaint and undisputed pleadings, however, reveal that the complaint was based exclusively on the appellee's use of Devon Brown's name and Social Security number to enforce his child support obligations through a Department of Revenue Florida Child Support Enforcement proceeding. *See* §§ 409.2551 - 409.25656, Fla. Stat. (2018).

On such a record, the allegations are legally insufficient to state a claim, amendment would be futile, and no error has been shown.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1****Certifications**I, Corey A. Chambas, Chief Executive Officer of First Business Financial Services, Inc., certifythat: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Business Financial Services,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors: a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.            /s/ Corey A. Chambas         Corey A. Chambas    Chief Executive Officer         July 26, 2007
August 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE EXPERIAN INFORMATION

SOLUTIONS CREDIT REPORTING

LITIGATION

 /

No. C 16-05674 WHA

No. C 16-05676 WHA

No. C 16-05679 WHA

No. C 16-05694 WHA

No. C 16-05701 WHA

No. C 16-05704 WHA

No. C 16-06315 WHA

No. C 16-06335 WHA

No. C 16-06363 WHA

No. C 16-06372 WHA

No. C 17-00343 WHA

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Following a case management conference on January 19, the Court entered this case

management order for nine of the above-captioned cases. This action, Grinder v. Experian, No.

3:17-cv-00343-WHA, was reassigned to the undersigned judge on January 27 and not included

in the case management conference, but is also subject to this case management order:

1. All hearings currently set in the above-captioned matters are VACATED.

2. All defendants in the above-captioned matters shall submit a combined motion to

dismiss that addresses the single purportedly dispositive issue underlying each

individual action. The motion to dismiss shall be filed in each action by

FEBRUARY 9.

Case 3:17-cv-00343-WHA Document 11 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

3. All plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters shall submit a combined opposition

to the aforementioned motion to dismiss. The opposition shall be filed in each

action by FEBRUARY 23.

4. All defendants in the above-captioned matters may submit a combined reply to

the aforementioned opposition. The reply shall be filed in each action by

MARCH 2.

5. A hearing on the combined motion to dismiss the above-captioned matters is set

for MARCH 23 AT 8:00 A.M.

6. All currently pending motions to dismiss in the above-captioned matters are

HELD IN ABEYANCE pending the outcome of the combined motion to dismiss. 

All currently pending stipulated requests to modify the briefing schedule are

DENIED as inconsistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00343-WHA Document 11 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-375]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


National Assessment Governing Board; Meetings

AGENCY: National Assessment Governing Board; Education.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a 
forthcoming meeting of the Executive Committee of the National 
Assessment Governing Board. This notice also describes the functions of 
the Board. Notice of this meeting is required under Section 10 (a)(2) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This document is intended to 
notify the general public of their opportunity to attend.

DATES: February 7, 1995.

TIME: 4:00 P.M. (et).

LOCATION: National Assessment Governing Board, Suite 825, 800 North 
Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Ann Wilmer, Operations Officer, 
National Assessment Governing Board, Suite 825, 800 North Capitol 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20002-4233, Telephone: (202) 357-6938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Assessment Governing Board is 
established under section 412 of the National Education Statistics Act 
of 1994 (Title IV of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994).

    The Board is established to formulate policy guidelines for the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress. The Board is responsible 
for selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment 
objectives, identifying appropriate achievement goals for each grade 
and subject tested, and establishing standards and procedures for 
interstate and national comparisons.
    The Executive Committee of the National Assessment Governing Board 
will meet February 7, 1995 from 4:00 P.M. until 5:00 P.M. Because this 
is a teleconference meeting, facilities will be provided so the public 
will have access to the Committee's deliberations. The Committees will 
meet to conduct the following business: review and approve the March 3-
4, 1995 meeting agenda; hear a report from the NAEP Planning Committee; 
and to hold preliminary discussions on plans for the evaluations of the 
NAEP Achievement Levels and the State NAEP programs.
    Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for 
public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, National 
Assessment Governing Board, Suite 825, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C., from 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.

    Dated: Jan 3, 1995.
Roy Truby,
Executive Director, National Assessment Governing Board.
[FR Doc. 94-375 Filed 1-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
Matthew Gregory MANJA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Danielle GOTTSCHLING, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1628

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Amanda Renee GULLEDGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4906

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 10, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Upon review pursuant to *Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find no error with Appellant's judgment or sentence, and affirm. We write only to correct a scrivener's error on Appellant's Judgment and Sentence. *See**Ashley v. State* , 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 n. 3 (Fla. 2003) (defining a scrivener's error as a written clerical error that is not "the result of a judicial determination or error"); *Rivera v. State* , 117 So. 3d 449 -50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (remanding for correction of the written sentences to reflect the oral pronouncement in an *Anders* appeal); *Skinner v. State* , 155 So. 3d 497, 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (remanding for correction of scrivener's error in the order on fines and costs in an *Anders* appeal). The lower court orally imposed a $50 application fee for the public defender in addition to the $100 public defender fee and other mandatory costs. Appellant's written sentence does not reflect the $50 application fee for the public defender. On remand, the trial court shall correct the error.

Wetherell, Jay, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not *

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral

argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 31, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAMES M. ARMOUR,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-3101

(D.C. No. 05-CR-10187-MLB)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before HENRY, LUCERO, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

The government has filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement with

defendant James M. Armour. In the agreement, Mr. Armour waived his right to

appeal his conviction and sentence on the charge of being a felon in possession of

a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Mr. Armour’s attorney

responded that he filed a notice of appeal to protect his client’s interests pursuant
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 1

-2-

to United States v. Garrett, 402 F.3d 1262, 1266-67 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding

counsel must file a notice of appeal if client requests him to do so, even if client

has waived his appellate rights). Counsel indicated his intent to file an Anders1

brief in the appeal. Consequently, this court afforded Mr. Armour an opportunity

to file an opposition to the government’s enforcement motion. He did not

respond.

This court will enforce a criminal defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal

so long as the following three elements are satisfied: (1) “the disputed appeal

falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights,” (2) the defendant’s

waiver of his appellate rights was knowing and voluntary, and (3) enforcing the

waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d

1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). We have carefully reviewed

the plea agreement and the transcript of the hearing at which Mr. Armour entered

his guilty plea. We conclude that the Hahn factors have been satisfied.

Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion to enforce the plea

agreement and DISMISS the appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 81 (Thursday, April 27, 1995)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 20749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10332]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

[Docket No. AB-55 (Sub-No. 498X)]


CSX Transportation, Inc.--Abandonment Exemption--in Henrico 
County and the City of Richmond, VA

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission exempts from the prior approval requirements of 
49 U.S.C. 10903-10904 the abandonment by CSX Transportation, Inc., of 
approximately 3.1 miles of rail line extending between milepost CA-
88.25 at Ruffin in Henrico County, VA, and milepost CA-85.15 at Brown 
and 17th Streets in the City of Richmond, VA, subject to standard labor 
protective conditions.

DATES: Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of 
financial assistance has been received, this exemption will be 
effective on May 27, 1995. Formal expressions of intent to file an 
offer\1\ of financial assistance under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2) must be 
filed by May 8, 1995; petitions to stay must be filed by May 12, 1995; 
requests for a public use condition must be filed by May 17, 1995; and 
petitions to reopen must be filed by May 22, 1995.

    \1\See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment--Offers of Finan. Assist., 4 
I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to Docket No. AB-55 (Sub-No. 498X) 
to: (1) Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate 
Commerce Commission, 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20423, and (2) Charles M. Rosenberger, Counsel for CSXT, 500 Water 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 927-5610. (TDD for 
hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Commission's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write 
to, call, or pick up in person from: Dynamic Concepts, Inc., Interstate 
Commerce Commission Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 2229, 
Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357/4359. (Assistance for 
the hearing impaired is available through TDD services (202) 927-5721.)

    Decided: April 13, 1995.

    By the Commission, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Owen, and 
Commissioners Simmons and McDonald.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-10332 Filed 4-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P