alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
wells fargo logo
              
              Commercial
      Mortgage Servicing
                MAC
      A0357-030
                P.O.
      Box 4036
                1320
      Willow Pass Rd., Suite 300
                Concord,
      CA 94520
                800
      986-9711






ANNUAL
STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


OFFICER'S
CERTIFICATE







RE: J.P.
Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.,


Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-LDP12.








In
accordance with Section 11.09 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, (the
“Agreement”) dated August 1, 2007, executed by and between J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.,  (as “Depositor”), Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A.,  (as “Master Servicer“), J.E. Robert Company, Inc., (as
“Special Servicer”), and LaSalle Bank National Association, (as "Trustee"), as
authorized officer of the Master Servicer, I certify that  (A) a
review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding calendar
year or portion thereof and of the performance of the Master Servicer under this
Agreement has been made under my supervision and (B) to the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout such year
or portion  thereof.




Wells
Fargo Bank, National Association


“Master
Servicer"






/s/
Briggs Hawley




Briggs Hawley


Vice
President


Wells Fargo Bank National Association


Commercial Mortgage Servicing










March
2008 765
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

s0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

137674

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137674 COA: 284697 Wayne CC: 00-004818-FH JOHNNIE JASPER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of China Holdings Acquisition Corp. (the Company) for
the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I, Paul K. Kelly, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



|(1) | The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                                                                                                           
|-------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               |  | /s/ Paul K. Kelly                                                                                         
|               |  | Paul K. Kelly                                                                                             
|March 31, 2008 |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 21222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10632]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Labor Statistics


Business Research Advisory Council Committee on Occupational 
Safety and Health Statistics; Cancellation of Committee Meeting

SUMMARY: Due to the scheduling difficulties of participants, the 
meeting of the Business Research Advisory Council Committee, on 
Occupational Safety and Health Statistics has been cancelled. The 
meeting had been announced previously in the Federal Register of April 
12, 1995, 60 FR 18618. The committee meeting was to have taken place on 
Thursday, May 4, 1995, 1:00 p.m. at the Postal Square Building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Constance B. DiCesare, Liaison for 
the Business Research Advisory Council to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Room 2850, Washington, DC 20212 
(202) 606-5887.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of April, 1995.
Katharine G. Abraham,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 95-10632 Filed 4-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-24-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Mario MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-1341.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 11, 2004.

B. Alan Seidler, New York, NY, for Appellant.

David M. Siegal, Assistant United States Attorney (David N. Kelley, United States Attorney for the Southern District New York, Daniel S. Ruzumna, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), New York, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: WALKER, Chief Judge, OAKES, and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

*771SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Mario Martinez appeals from an April 22, 2003 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Connecticut (Alvin K. Hellerstein, *District Judge)*convicting Martinez after a guilty plea of conspiracy to distribute one hundred grams or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Martinez was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum term of sixty months’ imprisonment to be followed by four years’ supervised release. We affirm.

Martinez, who provided information about his heroin source after entering into a proffer agreement with the government, argues on direct appeal (a) that the Government acted in bad faith as a result of its failure to file a United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5K1.1 motion at the sentencing proceeding and (b) that the district court misapprehended its authority to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of bad faith.

The proffer agreement specifically advised Martinez that the Government did not agree to make a § 5K1.1 motion on Martinez’s behalf or to enter into a cooperation agreement with him. Moreover, Martinez never alleged, much less made a threshold showing, that the Government’s decision not to file a § 5K1.1 motion was a result of an unconstitutional or discriminatory motive. *See Wade v. United States,*504 U.S. 181, 185-86, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992). Without such a showing, the district court had no basis to conduct a hearing or depart from the Sentencing Guidelines range. *See United States v. Difeaux,*163 F.3d 725, 729 (2d Cir.1998) (no right to evidentiary hearing unless defendant makes substantial threshold showing of improper prosecutorial motivation). Therefore, the district court properly found that, under these circumstances, it was without discretion to order a hearing regarding the downward departure under § 5K1.1.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is hereby AFFIRMED.
Eddie JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9654.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Israel CRUZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6821.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 1 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 2 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 3 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 4 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 5 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 6 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 7 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 8 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 9 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 10 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 11 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 12 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 13 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 14 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 15 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 16 of 17

case 2:13-cv-00099-RLM-APR   document 1    filed 03/14/13   page 17 of 17
Exhibit
32.1











CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of Koko Ltd.(the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Gregory Ruff, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Dated
this 31st day of March, 2010.





GREGORY RUFFGregory
      RuffChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
First Amendment to the Amended Executive Officer Performance-Based Compensation



 Exhibit 10.21 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 M.D.C. HOLDINGS, INC. 
 AMENDED EXECUTIVE OFFICER PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of M.D.C. Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) has established the M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. Amended Executive Officer Performance-Based
Compensation Plan (the “Plan”). This First Amendment to the Plan is made effective as of January 1, 2008 (“Effective Date”). 
 RECITALS 
 A. The Committee is authorized to make the following amendments to the Plan. 

B. The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service have issued final regulations under Section 409A of the Code, which provide in part,
that plan documents must be brought into compliance with Section 409A of the Code by December 31, 2008. 
 C. The Committee desires
to amend the Plan to comply with Section 409A of the Code. 
 AMENDMENTS 
 1. The last paragraph in Article IV of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
 The Company shall make payment to each of the Covered Employees as promptly as practicable after the end of each fiscal year, but in no event later than
two and one-half months after the end of each such fiscal year. Before any payment is made for a fiscal year pursuant to the Plan, the Committee shall certify in writing (i) that the respective Goal for such fiscal year was achieved; and
(ii) the amount of the Company’s Adjusted Pre-Tax Income, Stockholders’ Equity and Adjusted Pre-Tax Return on Stockholders’ Equity for such fiscal year, if payments are made under Paragraph B of Article III, or the amount of each
component of the Performance Goal for such fiscal year, if payments are made under Paragraph C of Article III. 
 2. The following ARTICLE VI
is added to the Plan: 
 ARTICLE VI 
 Section 409A 
 A. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Plan to the contrary, the time and form of
payment that is subject to the limitations imposed by Section 409A of the Code shall comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Code. 
 B. Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, payments under the Plan are intended to be eligible for the short term deferral regulatory exception to the requirements of Section 409A of the Code.








 This First Amendment, having been approved by the Committee, has been executed on the date set forth
below, to be effective as of the Effective Date set forth above. 
  

			
	M.D.C. HOLDINGS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher M. Anderson

	Its:	 	Sr. Vice President & CFO
	Date:	 	December 31, 2008


  

 2
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., petitioners, v. MASSACHUSETTS, et al.

No. 12-15.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 27, 2013.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11799]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Niobrara Scenic River Advisory Commission

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets the schedule for the forthcoming meeting of 
the Niobrara Scenic River Advisory Commission. Notice of this meeting 
is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463).

MEETING DATE AND TIME: Monday, June 12, 1995; 1:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Keya Paha County High School, Springview, Nebraska.
    Agenda topics include:
    1. Discussion of the draft alternatives for the Niobrara Scenic 
River from the planning team meeting on May 17 and 18.
    2. The opportunity for public comment and proposed agenda, date, 
and time, of the next Advisory Commission meeting.
    The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make 
oral/written presentation to the Commission or file written statements. 
Requests for time for making presentations may be made to the 
Superintendent prior to the meeting or to the Chair at the beginning of 
the meeting. In order to accomplish the agenda for the meeting, the 
Chair may want to limit or schedule public presentations.
    The meeting will be recorded for documentation and a summary in the 
form of minutes will be transcribed for dissemination. Minutes of the 
meeting will be made available to the public after approval by the 
Commission members. Copies of the minutes may be requested by 
contacting the Superintendent. An audio tape of the meeting will be 
available at the headquarters office of the Niobrara/Missouri National 
Scenic Riverways in O'Neill, Nebraska.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Group was established by the 
law that established the Niobrara Scenic River, Public Law 102-50. The 
purpose of the group, according to its charter, is to advise the 
Secretary of the Interior on matters pertaining to the development of a 
management plan, and management and operation of the 40 mile and 30 
mile segments of the Niobrara River designated by section 2 of Public 
Law 102-50 which lie outside the boundary of the Fort Niobrara National 
Wildlife Refuge and that segment of the Niobrara River from its 
confluence with Chimney Creek to its confluence with Rock Creek.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Warren Hill, Superintendent, Niobrara/
Missouri National Scenic Riverways, P.O. Box 591, O'Neill, Nebraska 
68763-0591, 402-336-3970.

    Dated: April 28, 1995.
William W. Schenk,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 95-11799 Filed 5-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Kyle GREENE, petitioner, v. Candee S. GASSMAN, et al.

No. 12-1103.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Keith ROGERS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9368.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
Elias JIMENEZ-GALICIA, petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General.

No. 12-846.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 10.15
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
MIDSTREAM SERVICES AND GAS DEDICATION AGREEMENT
 Amendment No. 2 th Gatherer Shipper Parties
 WITNESSETH
 Agreement
   1.
    
    Paragraph 5.2 (a) of the Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirely as follows:Beginning January 1, 2008, the Compression Fee and the Gathering Fee shall be
subject to adjustment on an annual basis. The amount of the adjusted fee shall be
determined by multiplying each of the Compression Fee and the Gathering Fee by the
sum of (a) 0.25 times the Percentage Change in the Producer Price Index for the
prior calendar year and (b) 0.75 times the Percentage Change in the First of Month
Index for the prior calendar year. The adjusted Compression Fee and Gathering Fee
shall (a) be rounded to the third decimal point and (b) shall be calculated by
Gatherer within 60 days after the beginning of each year, but shall be retroactive
to the beginning of the year. In no event shall the Compression Fee or the
Gathering Fee be reduced below the amount set forth in Paragraph 5.1.2.
    
    The following defined term in Section 1.28 of Exhibit B to the Agreement is deleted and
replaced in its entirely as follows:Producer Price Index  The average annual Producer Price Index for Commodities.
All calculations using the Producer Price Index shall be made using (a) the most
recently available version of such index, for the latter year in
the calculation, as of the date of the calculation (as published by the U.S.




---



##### 



Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/ppi), and, (b)
for the earlier year in the calculation, the average used for the calculation in the
immediately preceding year.
   Quest Energy Partners, LPBy:
    
    Quest Energy Partners GP, LLC,
its general partnerBy:
    
    /s/ DAVID LAWLERDavid Lawler
  President
 Bluestem Pipeline, LLCBy:
    
    Quest Midstream Partners, LP, its sole memberBy:
    
    Quest Midstream GP, LLC, its general partnerBy:
    
    /s/ MICHAEL A. FORBAUMichael A. Forbau
  Chief Operating Officer
#### Milton MORENO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-6433.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 6, 2004.

Milton Moreno, Appellant pro se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

*871Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Milton Moreno seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability mil not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moreno has not made the requisite showing. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Moreno’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Liz Sandro FUNES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-8599.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 15 - 00076 - CV HARVEY BRAMLETT, JR. AND JASON BLAKENEY, APPELLANT S V. TDCJ, ET AL, APPELLE E S On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 99,017 - 00 - E, Honorable Ron Enns, Presiding



### March 13 , 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellants, Harvey Bramlett, Jr. and Jason Blakeney filed an appeal in the above referenced cause. They also filed an affidavit of indigence. However, they failed to file the necessary documents required by Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. By letter dated February 27, 2015, this cour t directed appellants to comply with Chapter 14 by filing 1) an affidavit describing their previous filings and 2) certified copies of their inmate trust accounts. They we re also told that the appeal would be dismissed if they did not comply. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c); see T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN .2

§ 14.002 (West Supp. 2014) (stating that Chapter 14 applies to appeals brought by an inmate in an appellate court); Douglas v. Moffett , 418 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App. — H ouston [14 th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). In their response, Bramlett and Blakeney stated: “As the record in this case will reflect - the Appellants have already filed their Affidavit of Previous Filings as well as Certified Copies of their Inmate Trust Fund with the trial court in accordance with Chp. 14 Civ. Prac. Rem. Code. What’s more the Clerk of the Court of Appeals herself is already in possession of a copy of these pleadings per the trial court Clerk’s record filed July 12 th , 201 1 in Case No. 07 - 11 - 0139 - CV. . . in th e event that the Clerk wishes to re review [sic] them. . . .” That affidavit, however, is over three years old and does not reflect the filings, if any, since July 2011. Nor do we have a certified copy of their trust accounts as of the date this appeal wa s perfected. The requirement to tender the affidavit specified by Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code is mandatory, and the lack thereof is grounds for dismissal of the lawsuit. Douglas v. Moffett , 418 S.W.3d at 340; see also In re Antho ny G. Hereford, Jr., No. 07 - 14 - 00348 - CV, 2014 Tex. App. L EXIS 11521, at *1 - 2 (Tex. App. — Amarillo October 17, 2014, orig. proceeding) (holding that the failure to comply with Chapter 14 subjected the mandamus proceeding to dismissal). Accordingly, we dism iss the appeal. Brian Quinn Chief Justice