alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
v137357_ex10-26 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


    
      Exhibit
10.26
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1210]



[[Page 3667]]


NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES


Challenge and Advancement Advisory Panel (Music Advancement 
Section); Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of 
the Challenge and Advancement Advisory Panel (Music Advancement 
Section) to the National Council on the Arts will be held on February 
15-16, 1995 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. This meeting will be held in 
room 716, at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20506.
    Portions of this meeting will be open to the public from 9:00 a.m. 
to 10:00 a.m. on February 15 for opening remarks and introductions and 
from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on February 16 for a policy discussion.
    The remaining portions of this meeting from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 
on February 15 and from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on February 16 are for 
the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation 
on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation 
on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including 
information given in confidence to the agency by grant applications. In 
accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 8, 1994 
these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c) 
(4), (6) and (9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels which are open to the public, and may be permitted to 
participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel 
chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal employee in 
attendance.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contact the Office of Special Constituencies, National Endowment for 
the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-
5532, TYY 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Yvonne Sabine, Committee Management Officer, National 
Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5439.

    Dated: January 10, 1995.
Yvonne M. Sabine,
Director, Office of Council and Panel Operations, National Endowment 
for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 95-1210 Filed 1-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
USDC IN/ND case 3:12-cv-00748-JTM-CAN document 1-1 filed 11/19/12 page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Larry Thackery, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  August 19, 2013



By: /s/ Larry Thackery

Larry Thackery

Chief Financial Officer

Date:  August 19, 2013
Gerald C. &aa AUEIXN BP. TEXAS 

Mr. Quincy Hawkins 

County Auditor 

Henderson County 

Athens, Texas 

Dear Sirt Opinion Do. O-719 

Rer Liability of the County Comaissioaers~ Court for interest on 

generel.fmd sorip. 

Your request for ea opinion on the followiag question: 

"IS the county liable to holders of general sarip 

for six per cent laterest on saum?" 

has bsea received by this offioe. 

us quote from ea opinion Do. O-505, written by the Hoa. Richard 

E. Coake, Assistant Attorney Generals as followsr 

*A county general fund wemeat, casmoaly oalled 

general fund scrip, is not a negotiable iastruemsat. 

h-t. 5932, Sea. 1, B.C.S. of Texas. It ia only evidence of indebtedness shmlng that the claim presented wee allowed. It is not a contract to pay oa demead. The scrip is sa order to the Couaty Treasurer 

.to issue a vouoher to the payee for the amount thereofo 55 Tex. 49, Aske v. Herris Cow&y." 

Prior to this holding by this department, it has been trios held 

by the department that a mmnrissioaers ' Court is without authority to allow or pay the iaterest upon ordinary muvents or sorip issued in payment 

of current expenses, 

It is, therefore, our opinion that a county is not legally liable 

to pay interest oa sorip warrants issued to pay monthly acoouats. 

Yours very truly 

FCC:ob:egw 

APPROVED 

Gerald C. %na 

ATTOFGIEX G- OF TBXAS 

ATTORNEY GWERAI, OF TFiXAS 

By s/Fred C. Chandler 

Fred C. Chandler 

Assistant 
vr. ;uincy Hawkins, thy 2, 1959, Page 2 

that a Coxiissionere* Court is without authority to allow or pay the intereet upon ordfnary 

countywarrnnt6 or norlp issued in payneat 0r 

current ex~3enses. 

It Is, therefore, our opinion that a 

county is not legally liable to pay interest on 

scrip warrants issued to pay monthly acaounts. 

Trustln~thatthlrr anmara your inw.rY. we are 

Youra Yerp truly 

Kl’TORNEF GENERAL OF TlSAB
William David BURNSIDE, petitioner, v. T. WALTERS, et al.

No. 12-7892.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Motion of petitioner to remand granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of *LaFountain v. Harry,* No. 11-1496, 2013 WL 2221569 (C.A.6, May 22, 2013).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

OSCAR GUILLEN, SR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 2:13 CV 105

)

MS. HALEY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION and ORDER

Oscar Guillen, Sr., a pro se prisoner, filed this case in the Lake Superior Court on

December 19, 2012. It was removed to this court by the defendants on March 20, 2013.

Guillen cannot litigate in this court because he is a restricted filer. On October 29, 2009,

in Guillen v. Hoppe, 2:09-cv-345 (N.D. Ind. filed October 19, 2009), the Clerk was ordered

“to return, unfiled, any papers filed in any case by or on behalf of Oscar Guillen, Sr.

(except for a notice of appeal or unless filed in a criminal or habeas corpus proceeding)

until he has paid in full all outstanding fees and sanctions in all civil actions in any

federal court . . . .” That sanction was imposed because Guillen is an abusive litigator

who had filed nine meritless cases or appeals and then attempted to bamboozle the

court in an attempt to evade his obligation to pre-pay the filing fee as required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). The restriction is still in place because he owes this court thousands of

dollars in unpaid filing fees.

 The defendants removed this case from State court because it included federal

claims. It was their right to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, because Guillen is
unable to file anything in this court, it is impossible for him to litigate this case here. The

defendants cannot be made to litigate federal claims in State court if they choose to

remove them. However, the restriction which precluded Guillen from litigating civil

cases in this court did not preclude him from litigating in State court. These two

competing interests can be accommodated by dismissing the federal claims and

remanding the State claims back to State court. 

For the foregoing reasons, the federal claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE and the remaining State claims are REMANDED to the Lake Superior

Court. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: April 11, 2013

 s/ James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Tate SMITH, petitioner, v. Dessie DAVIS.

No. 12-1235.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Jose SANTOS, petitioner, v. NEW JERSEY.

No. 12-9821.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Kevin P. CLAFFEY.

No. D-2728.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Kevin P. Claffey, of Brooklyn, New York, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRLIN BUILDERS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00608-JST 

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING 

MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Re: ECF Nos. 53, 66

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore’s report and recommendation, 

ECF No. 66, to grant Defendant/Cross-Claimant North American Specialty Co.’s (“NAS”) motion 

for default judgment against Cross-Defendants Selina Singh, Majindar Singh, Bara Infoware, Inc., 

and Federal Solutions Group, Inc. ECF No. 25. NAS served Cross-Defendants with the report on 

June 7, 2019. ECF No. 67. The period for objections has elapsed, and no objections were filed. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

The Court finds the report correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, and adopts it in every 

respect. The defaulting cross-defendants have never appeared in the case, and NAS’s motion for 

default judgment in the form of damages is supported by the record. In particular, the Court 

concurs in Judge Westmore’s assessment of the factors enumerated by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. 

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986). See ECF No. 66 at 6-9. The Court also agrees that an 

award of $3.5 million, plus prejudgment interest at an annual rate of 10 percent and post-judgment 

interest calculated according to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, is warranted here. Id. at 9-11.

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \ \
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Accordingly, the Court will enter judgment in those amounts in a separate document.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge
** **

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

 

 

Form 10-Q

 

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLYREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-11767

 

 

ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD.II

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1389 

To prohibit the importation, manufacture, distribution, or storage of ammonium nitrate compound without a license, to prohibit the receipt of 

ammonium nitrate compound without a license or permit, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. HINCHEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the importation, manufacture, distribution, or 

storage of ammonium nitrate compound without a license, to prohibit the receipt of ammonium nitrate compound without a license or permit, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ammonium Nitrate 

5 Security Act’’. 
2 

•HR 1389 IH 

1 SEC. 2. IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, 

2 STORAGE, AND RECEIPT OF AMMONIUM NI3 TRATE COMPOUND. 

4 (a) Section 841(d) of title 18, United States Code, 

5 is amended by striking ‘‘and igniters’’ and inserting ‘‘ig6 niters, and ammonium nitrate compound’’. 

7 (b) Section 841 of such title is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(t) ‘Ammonium nitrate compound’ means solid 

10 ammonium nitrate that is chiefly the ammonium salt 

11 of nitric acid, and any mixture containing ammo12 nium nitrate that is detonable. For purposes of this 

13 chapter, a mixture of ammonium nitrate is detonable 

14 if the mixture fails such detonation test as may be 

15 devised by the Attorney General.’’. 

16 (c) The second sentence of section 843(a) of such title 

17 is amended by inserting ‘‘, except that if the only explosive 

18 material for which the applicant is seeking a license or 

19 permit is ammonium nitrate compound, the applicant shall 

20 not be required to pay such fee’’ before the period. 

21 (d) Section 843 of such title is amended in each of 

22 subsections (b)(6) and (h)(1) by inserting ‘‘other than am23 monium nitrate compound’’ after ‘‘explosive materials’’. 

24 (e) Section 844(j) of such title is amended by insert25 ing ‘‘ammonium nitrate compound,’’ after ‘‘title,’’. 
3 

•HR 1389 IH 

1 (f) Section 847 of such title is amended by adding 

2 at the end the following: ‘‘The Attorney General shall pro3 mulgate regulations governing the storage of ammonium 

4 nitrate compound.’’. 

Æ
**Exhibit 34.3.2**

[Letterhead of KPMG LLP] 

KPMG LLP 

1601 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Members 

Regulus Group LLC: 

We haveexamined management’s assessment for those customers that management has informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, including in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that RegulusGroup LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers of asset backed securities andservicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Regulus Group LLC has determined that the remainder of theservicing criteria are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination. 

Our examination wasconducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria specifiedabove and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities relatedto the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transaction andservicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does notprovide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Companycomplied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

February 12, 2008 

KPMG, LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership is the U.S. 

member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative
Noel Francisco Perez VALLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-895

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed July 3, 2019

Alfonso Oviedo-Reyes, Miami, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1) (providing motions under this rule must be filed within two years after the judgment and sentence become final unless "the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant's attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, and the claim is made within 2 years of the time the new facts were or could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence"); *Jules v. State*, 233 So. 3d 1196, 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding that a motion for postconviction relief was time-barred where defendant "failed to establish that in the exercise of due diligence he could not have ascertained the possible immigration consequences of his plea" within the requisite two-year period); *see also**Long v. State*, 183 So. 3d 342, 346 (Fla. 2016) (holding that, to be entitled to postconviction relief based on newly-discovered evidence relating to a guilty plea, a defendant must establish: "First, the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of the plea, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have known of it by the use of diligence. Second, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for the newly discovered evidence, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial"); *State v. Rodriguez*, 990 So. 2d 600, 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that "[n]either the trial court nor counsel is required to forewarn a defendant about every conceivable collateral consequence of a plea to criminal charges") (quoting *Simmons v. State*, 611 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) ).
Exhibit 33.1.5

 

[Letterhead of Wells Fargo Bank, NA]

 

 

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)(I)(iv), 1122{d)(4)(i) and 

 

I 122(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 1 122 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*  |
|--------|------------------------------|

lts: Senior Vice President 

Dated: February 29, 2008