alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Ted L. Hall, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kiewit RoyaltyTrust, for which U.S. Bank National Association acts as Trustee;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, distributable income and changes in trustcorpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;
     4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), orfor causing such procedures to be established and maintained, for theregistrant and I have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchcontrols and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant is made known to me by otherswithin the registrant, particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period coveredby this report, based on my evaluation; and
     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to theregistrant’s auditors:
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report 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.
     In giving the certifications in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, I have relied tothe extent I consider reasonable on information provided to me by AmberBrewster, Bank of Oklahoma.
Date: November 5, 2004
/s/ Ted L. Hall
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the 2007 Executive Equity Incentive Plan and the 2007 Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan of Circle Entertainment Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, stockholders’ equity and schedule of Circle Entertainment Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010 included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.








By:
/s/   L.L. Bradford & Company, LLCLas Vegas, Nevada

March 31, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-30-TLS 

)

DERRELL L. HAYES )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 21], filed on September 18, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection

to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 21] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on October 10, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Kurtis MONSCHKE, petitioner, v. James N. CROSS, Jr., Warden.

No. 12-9326.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CR-66-JTM-PRC

 )

DAVID LEIPERT, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON PLEA OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT DAVID LEIPERT

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant David Leipert’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came for hearing before Magistrate Judge Paul R.

Cherry, on March 30, 2016, with the consent of Defendant David Leipert, counsel for Defendant

David Leipert, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant David Leipert’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule

11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant David Leipert under

oath on the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney

and of counsel for Defendant David Leipert,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant David Leipert understands the nature of the charge against him to which

the plea is offered;

(2) that Defendant David Leipert understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his pleas

of not guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,
and his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant David Leipert understands what the maximum possible sentence is,

including the effect of the supervised release terms, and Defendant David Leipert understands that

the sentencing guidelines apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some

circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant David Leipert has been knowingly and voluntarily

made and is not the result of force or threats or of promises;

(5) that Defendant David Leipert is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant David Leipert understands that his answers may later be used against him

in a prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant David Leipert’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept David Leipert’s plea of guilty to the offense charged

in Count One of the Indictment and that Defendant David Leipert be adjudged guilty of the offense

charged in Count One of the Indictment and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been

ordered. Should this Report and Recommendation be accepted and David Leipert be adjudged guilty,

a sentencing date before Judge James T. Moody will be set by separate order. Objections to the

Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2016.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: Honorable James T. Moody

2
Darrell ANDERSON, petitioner, v. Mike OBENLAND, Superintendent, Clallam Bay Corrections Center.

No. 12-9097.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Ramon ORTIZ-SALGADO, petitioner, v. Mr. POLK, Warden, et al.

No. 13-6450.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
EX-35.9
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas
1761 East Saint Andrews Place
Attention Trust Admin-DB07C9
Santa Ana, CA 92707


RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows for the calendar year
2007 or applicable portion thereof (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) a review of Wells Fargo's activities as Trustee under the servicing
    agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the "Servicing Agreement(s)") has
    been made under my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review Wells Fargo has fulfilled
    all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material
    respects throughout the Reporting Period



March 1, 2008

/s/ Judith Rishel
Judith Rishel

Vice President



(page)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Schedule A

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

1 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving
  Corporation, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM 2007-C9,
  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee

2 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities
  Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-CD5, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee
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 Annual Report of Beauty Brands Group, Inc., (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dan
Kelly, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.
  Dated:  March
31, 20091
 
 /s/
      Dan
      KellyDan
      Kelly, Chief Financial Officer
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing
certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed
as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 1 of 14
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 2 of 14
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 3 of 14
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 4 of 14
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 5 of 14
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 6 of 14
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 7 of 14
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 8 of 14
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 9 of 14
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 10 of 14
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 11 of 14
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 12 of 14
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 13 of 14
case 3:13-cv-00030-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 01/14/13 page 14 of 14
**Exhibit 34.6.2**

[Letterhead PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP] 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800 

Dallas TX 75201-2997 

Telephone (214) 999 1400 

Facsimile(214) 754 7991 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

To the Board of Directors of The First American Corporation: 

We haveexamined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L.P. (the “Company” and an indirect subsidiary of The First American Corporation)complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as theresidential and commercial tax service provider (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2007 and for the year then ended) excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(x) and1122(d)(4)(xiv)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management’s assertion identifies the individual securities defined by management asconstituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on atest basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected securities thatcomprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and the servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that mayhave occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers forwhich the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 12, 2008
#### Ronnie VAUGHAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-7948.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

Ronnie Vaughan, Appellant pro se.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ronnie Vaughan seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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 will 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 Vaughan 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 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*
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12153]



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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA

9 CFR Parts 92 and 98

[Docket No. 94-087-2]


Canadian Border Ports; Baudette, MN

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: On March 29, 1995, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service published a direct final rule. (See 60 FR 16043-16045). The 
direct final rule notified the public of our intention to amend the 
animal importation regulations by adding Baudette, MN, as a Canadian 
border port for pet birds, poultry, horses, ruminants, swine, and germ 
plasm. We did not receive any written adverse comments or written 
notice of intent to submit adverse comments in response to the direct 
final rule

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the direct final rule is 
confirmed as May 30, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Vogt, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, Import/Export Animals, National Center for Import and 
Export, VS, APHIS, Suite 3B05, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 
20737-1231; (301) 734-8172.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102-105, 
111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31 
U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of May 1995.
Lonnie J. King,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 95-12153 Filed 5-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-M
EX-35.10
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Commercial Mortgage-Servicing

MAC A0357-030
P.O. Box 4036, Concord, Ca 94524
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 Trust 2007-CIBC20 (the
"Trust"), Commercial Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2007-CIBC20
issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September
28, 2007 (The "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") by and among J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., (the "Companion Loan Depositor") and the
other parties thereto (the "Companion Loan Transaction").


On behalf of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer (the
"Master Servicer") under that certain pooling and servicing agreement, dated as
of May 1, 2007 (the "Lead Servicing Agreement"), by and among J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., (as "Depositor"), Master Servicer, J.E.
Robert Company, Inc., (as "Special Servicer"), and the other parties thereto,
relating to J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-LDP12, I certify to the
Companion Loan Depositor that (i) a review of the activities of the Master
Servicer during the preceding calendar year and of its performance under the
Lead Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision and (ii) to the
best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled
all its obligations with respect to the servicing of the Sawgrass Mills
Mortgage Companion Loan, as defined in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
(which is serviced under the Lead Servicing Agreement but part of the trust
securing the Companion Loan Transaction) in all material respects throughout
such year.

as Master Servicer



/s/ Briggs A. Hawley
Briggs A. Hawley
Vice President

March 2008
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00156

- CR

IN RE RAYMOND GILBERT

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

For the second time in a matter of months, Raymond Gilbert has petitioned this Court for
mandamus relief. Gilbert would have us compel the trial court, the Honorable R. Scott McKee of

the 392nd Judicial District Court of Henderson County, to rule on motions Gilbert claims to have

filed. W e will dismiss Gilbert’s petition.
Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code provides
, “ E ach court of appeals for a court
of appeals district may issu e all writs of mandamus, agreeable to the principles of law regulating
those writs, against: (1) a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county
court in the court of appeals district.” See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(b)(1) (Supp.). As we
noted in our previous opinion denying mandamus relief, t he 392nd Judicial District Court of
Henderson County is not located within our district. T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.201(g) (Supp.).
It is located within the district of the Tyler Cou rt of Appeals. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.201(m) (Supp.). Although Gilbert’s underlying criminal appeal was transferred to this Court
pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s docket equalization order, such transfer does not confer
jurisdiction on this C ourt in a separate original proceeding. See In re Davis , 87 S.W.3d 794, 795
(Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding).3 We, therefore, dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

Ralph K. Burgess Justice

Date Submitted: July 25 , 2019 Date Decided: July 26 , 2019

Do Not Publish