alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-35.3
(logo) CHASE


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


RE: J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-S3 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates: This
Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2007 (the "Agreement"), by
and among J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I, a Delaware corporation, as
depositor (the "Depositor"), U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the
"Trustee"), and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in its dual capacities as master
servicer (the "Master Servicer") and securities administrator (the "Securities
Administrator"), and acknowledged by J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp., a
Delaware corporation, as seller (the "Seller"), for purposes of Sections 2.04
and 2.05 and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a national banking
association, and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., a national banking
association, as custodians (each a "Custodian and together, the "Custodians")
for purposes of Sections 11.01, 11.02, 11.03, 11.06, 11.07 and 11.09

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
Association, as servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the J.P. Morgan Mortgage
Trust 2007-S3 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (The "Agreement"), does hereby
certify that:

(1) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year ending
December 31, 2007 and of the performance of the Servicer under the Agreement has
been made under my supervision; and

(2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such year.

Date: 02/28/2008

JPMorgan Chase Bank,
National Association,
as Servicer
By: /s/ David Lowman
Name: David Lowman
Title: Executive Vice President
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance





Exhibit 10.1




FORFEITURE AND TERMINATION AGREEMENT




THIS
FORFEITURE AND TERMINATION AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of
the 2nd day of February,
2009, by and between 
 _____ 
(“Executive”), and Pike Electric Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation (the “Company”, and collectively, the “Parties”).



Statement of Purpose




Executive has previously been granted the opportunity to receive a Cash Incentive Award (the
“Award”) from Company pursuant to that certain Cash Incentive Award Agreement for Fiscal 2009
between Company and Executive dated September 29, 2008 (the “Award Agreement”). As a means of
more equitably apportioning among the Company’s employees the effects of the current dislocation in the
national and global economies, the parties have determined to terminate the Award Agreement and
Executive has decided to forfeit completely any Award for which he might have been eligible under
the Award Agreement effective as of the date hereof in accordance with the terms of this Forfeiture
and Termination Agreement.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing statement of purpose and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Executive on
behalf of himself and his heirs, successors and assigns forfeits the Award in its entirety, and the
Company and Executive agree that the Award Agreement is terminated, both effective as of the
date hereof; provided, that the “Dispute Resolution” provisions of Section 10 of the Award
Agreement shall remain in effect. Executive affirms that this forfeiture is knowing, voluntary and
unconditional.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Forfeiture and Termination Agreement on the date
first written above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CORPORATION:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	PIKE ELECTRIC CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EXECUTIVE:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
Mark J. CALHOUN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9922.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00258- CV

In re Rober to G om ez F ernandez

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator Roberto Gomez Fe rnande z, an inmate, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. In the petition, Fe rnande z asks this Court to compel the presiding judge of the 16 7 th J udicial District Court of Travis County to answe r his reque st for a judgme nt nunc pro tunc modify ing his judgme nt of conviction. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.03 § 2(a ).

Mandamus may issue to comp el a trial court to respond to a motion for judgme nt
nunc pro tunc . Ex parte Y barra , 149 S.W .3d 147, 148-49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Ho we v er, to obtain mandamus relief compelling the trial court to rul e o n a motion, the rela tor must establish t h at (1 ) a properly filed m otion has been pending for unreasona ble amount of t ime, (2) the matter
was broug ht to the attention of the trial court, a nd (3) the trial court failed or ref used to r ule on the motion. In re Layton , 257 S.W .3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 2008, orig
. proce eding ). Fur ther, it is the relator’s burden to proper ly reque st and show ent i t l em en t t o mandamus relief
. W alker

v. Pack er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). I n this reg ard, the rela tor must provide the revie wing court with a rec ord sufficie nt to establish his rig ht to mandamus relief
. In re Mendoza , 131 S.W .3d167, 168 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig
. proce eding) ; s ee Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (1)

(re quiring that relator file ce rtified or swor n copy of eve ry document mater ial to claim for r elief)
. Her e, Fe rnande z has not provided this Court with a file-stampe d copy of his motion for judgme nt nunc pro tunc or any other document showing that his motion has been proper ly filed. Wit hout this rec ord, we cannot deter mine whether the motion wa s p ro perly filed or, if it was, the date on which it was rece ived by either the cler

k’s offic e or the judge
. I n addition, Fe rnande z has not provided this Court with a ny rec ord demonstrating that his motion for judgme nt nunc pro tunc h as been broug ht to the trial court’s attention or that a ruling was reque sted. See In re Blakene y , 254 S.W .3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig
. proce eding ) (re lator mus t show that trial court wa s awa

re of and aske d to rule on motion). Be cause Fe rnande z has failed to demonstrate his rig ht to relief , the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield Filed: June 4, 2014

2
# L_2017092EN.01003501.xml

| 6.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 92/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 92/35

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2017/645

of 5 April 2017

correcting the Latvian language version of Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feed

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (1), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An error has occurred in the Latvian language version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 (2) as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2013 (3). Therefore a correction in the text of the footnotes of the tables of points 5.1.1, 5.1.3 and 5.1.5 in Annex I is necessary in the Latvian language version of Regulation (EC) No 152/2009. The other language versions are not affected. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An error has occurred in the Latvian language version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 (2) as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2013 (3). Therefore a correction in the text of the footnotes of the tables of points 5.1.1, 5.1.3 and 5.1.5 in Annex I is necessary in the Latvian language version of Regulation (EC) No 152/2009. The other language versions are not affected.

| (2) | Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 should therefore be corrected accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 should therefore be corrected accordingly.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Concerns only the Latvian language version.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 April 2017.

For the Commission

The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 of 27 January 2009 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feed (OJ L 54, 26.2.2009, p. 1).

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2013 of 19 July 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 as regards methods of sampling and analysis (OJ L 197, 20.7.2013, p. 1).

3

---
Second Amendment to Employee Stock Purchase Plan



 Exhibit 10.30.2 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 
 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. 
 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 
 WHEREAS,
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted and maintains the Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”), an employee stock purchase plan within the meaning of
section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to
change the manner in which the purchase price is determined under the Plan. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained
in Section 8 of the Plan, Section 5 of the Plan is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2009, by deleting the first sentence thereof, and by inserting the following sentence in lieu thereof: 
 The purchase price (the “Purchase Price”) per share of Common Stock hereunder for any Purchase Period shall be the lesser of (i) 95%
of the Fair Market Value of a share of Common Stock on the first day of such Purchase Period and (ii) 95% of the Fair Market Value of a share of Common Stock on the last day of such Purchase Period. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized officer on this 15th day of December, 2008. 

 

	
	ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO.
	
	 /s/ J. Patrick Gallagher, Jr.

	J. Patrick Gallagher, Jr.
	Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Case 3:17-cv-00561-WHO Document 15 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:17-cv-00561-WHO Document 15 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:17-cv-00561-WHO Document 15 Filed 02/28/17 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 31.2

 

Sarbanes - Oxley Section 302 Certification

 
| I, James J. Judge, certify that: |
|----------------------------------|
|                             |
| 1.                     | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BEC Funding II, LLC (the Registrant) and other reports containing distribution information for the period covered by the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. |
| 2.                     | Based on my knowledge, this 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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
| 3.                     | Based on my knowledge, the financial information required to be provided to the trustee under the governing documents of the issuer is included in these reports; and |
| 4.                     | Based on my knowledge, Boston Edison Company, the Servicer, has complied with its servicing obligations and minimum servicing standards. |
|  

                    |   |

 
|                                                                                                                                                        |                        |                                                                                                                                                   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May 11, 2005                       |   By:   | /s/ JAMES J. JUDGE                       |
|                                                                                                                                                        |                        | James J. Judge                                                                                                                                         |
|                                                                                                                                                        |                        |                                                                                                                                                   |   | Senior Vice President, Treasurer |
|                                                                                                                                                        |                        |                                                                                                                                                   |   | and Chief Financial Officer |
Agustin Josende ALVAREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2507

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Robert D. BOYETT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. LEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE and Office of the State Attorney 20th Circuit, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-2793

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20916-20917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10449]



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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675

[Docket No. 950206040-5040-01; I.D. 042495A]


Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Atka 
Mackerel in the Central Aleutian District

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the directed fishery for Atka mackerel in the 
Central Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding 
the final groundfish specification of Atka mackerel in that area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 25, 1995, 
until 12 midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew N. Smoker, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing 
the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 675.
    In accordance with Sec. 675.20(a)(7)(ii) the Atka mackerel total 
allowable catch [[Page 20917]] (TAC) for the Central Aleutian District 
was established by the final 1995 initial groundfish specifications (60 
FR 8479, February 14, 1995) as 42,500 metric tons (mt).
    The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Director), has 
determined, in accordance with Sec. 675.20(a)(8), that the Atka 
mackerel TAC in the Central Aleutian District soon will be reached. 
Therefore, the Regional Director has established a directed fishing 
allowance of 41,500 mt after determining that 1,000 mt will be taken as 
incidental catch in directed fishing for other species in the Central 
Aleutian District. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing 
for Atka mackerel in the Central Aleutian District. Directed fishing 
standards for applicable gear types may be found in the regulations at 
Sec. 675.20(h).

Classification

    This action is taken under Sec. 675.20 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 24, 1995.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-10449 Filed 4-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
**Exhibit 34.1**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Discover Bank 

New Castle, DE 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria, that Discover Bank (the “Bank”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions involving credit card receivables conducted by Discover Card Master Trust I and Discover Card Execution Note Trust (the “Platform”) as ofand for the year ended November 30, 2012, excluding the criteria set forth in Items 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(v), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(i), (d)(4)(iv), (d)(4)(vi), (d)(4)(vii),(d)(4)(viii), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii), (d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Bank with respect to the Platform. Appendix A tomanagement’s assertion identifies the individual asset backed-transactions defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on management’s assertion about the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, ona test basis, evidence about the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Bank performed those selected activitiesin compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Bank duringthe period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arisingfrom errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Bank during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

Inour opinion, management’s assertion that the Bank complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended November 30, 2012, for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Chicago,IL 

February 19, 2013
[National City Logo]**National City Mortgage Co.**A Subsidiary of National City Bank of Indiana 3232 Newmark Drive  Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 Telephone: (937) 910-1200 **Mailing Address:**P.O. Box 1820 Dayton, Ohio 45401-1820 **SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATE I NT**RE: See attached for series (Exhibit A) I, Philip D. Cunningham III, hereby certify to Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB and  Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., that I am a duly elected Executive Vice President of  National City Mortgage Company (the "Company"), a company organized under the laws of the State of Ohio and further as follows: (i)A review of the activities of the Company during the immediately preceding calendar year (or applicable portion thereof) and of its performance under the Agreement and any applicable Reconstitution Agreement during such period has been made under such officer's supervision, and (ii)to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement and any applicable Reconstitution Agreement in all material respects throughout such calendar year (or applicable portion thereof). National City Mortgage Co. Certified by:    /s/ Philip D. Cunningham III Date: February 29, 2008 Name: Philip  D. Cunningham III Title: Executive Vice President Exhibit A LEHMAN BROTHERS BANK SASCO 2003-1 LMT 2005-2 SASCO 2003-12XS LMT 2005-3 SASCO 2003-17A LMT 2006-6 SASCO 2003-22A LMT 2007-10 SASCO 2003-35 LMT 2007-5 SASCO 2003-38 LMT 2007-6 SASCO 2003-3XS LMT 2007-7 SASCO 2003-4 LXS 2005-2 SASCO 2003-8 LXS 2005-3 SASCO 2004-3 LXS 2006-20 SASCO 2004-4XS LXS 2007-11 SASCO 2004-6XS SARM 2004-12 SASCO 2004-9XS SARM 2004-13 SASCO 2005-10 SARM 2005-15 SASCO 2005-14 SARM 2005-22 SASCO 2005-15 SARM 2005-5XS SASCO 2005-16 SASCO 2002-11A SASCO 2005-2XS SASCO 2002-13 SASCO 2005-3 SASCO 2002-15 SASCO 2005-4XS SASCO 2002-17 SASCO 2005-9XS SASCO 2002-1A TRUST FD WEBSTER 2002-3 SASCO 2002-23XS WEBSTER 2002-5 SASCO 2002-3 TRUST FUND WEBSTER 2002-WI-2 SASCO 2002-5A BANK OF AMERICA 2002-3 SASCO 2002-6 GREENPOINT 2003-WL2
M A N D A T E

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

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 13th

day of May, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE

BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF D. T.

NO. 12-15-00085-CV; Trial Court No. 41,258

By per curiam opinion.

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss the appeal 

herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by 

this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and that the 

decision be certified to the court below for observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 9

th day of July, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk