alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA

1.

BMW Financial Services NA, LLC (BMW FS) is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it under paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as of and for the 2-month period ending December 31, 2007 (the Reporting Period), as set forth in Appendix A hereto.  The transactions covered by this report include asset-backed securities transactions for which BMW FS acted as servicer involving retail installment sales contracts for automobiles(the Platform);

2.

BMW FS has engaged certain vendors (the Vendors) to perform specific, limited or scripted activities, and BMW FS elects to take responsibility for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria or portion of the servicing criteria applicable to such Vendors activities as set forth in Appendix A hereto;

3.

Except as set forth in paragraph 4 below, BMW FS used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;

4.

The criteria listed in the column titled Inapplicable Servicing Criteria on Appendix A hereto are inapplicable to BMW FS based on the activities it performs, directly or through its Vendors, with respect to the Platform;

5.

BMW FS has complied, in all material respects, with the applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2007 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole;

6.

BMW FS has not identified and is not aware of any material instance of noncompliance by the Vendors with the applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2007 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole;

7.

BMW FS has not identified any material deficiency in its policies and procedures to monitor the compliance by the Vendors with the applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2007 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole; and

8.

JH Cohn LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on BMW FSs assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Reporting Period.







Date: March 26, 2008

By:   /s/ Kerstin Zerbst

Kerstin Zerbst

Chief Financial Officer
EX-33.7
MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION ON COMPLIANCE
WITH REGULATION AB CRITERIA

March 6, 2008

SunTrust Bank (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance
with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d)(2)(i),
229.1122(d)(4)(i) and 229.1122(d)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations
(the "CFR") (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"), for securitization
transactions serviced by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. occurring after December 31,
2005 (the "Platform"). The Asserting Party is not assessing compliance with any
other criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the CFR.

The Asserting Party used the applicable criteria in paragraph (d) of Title 17,
Section 229.1122 of the CFR to assess compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria.

The Asserting Party has concluded that it has complied, in all material
respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the twelve month
period ending December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period").

Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued
an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.


SUNTRUST BANK
Solely with respect to Sections 229.1122(d)(4)(i) and 229.1122(d)(4)(ii)


By: /s/ Rosealma T. Burton
Name: Rosealma T. Burton
Title: First Vice President


SUNTRUST BANK
Solely with respect to Section 229.1122(d)(2)(i)


By: /s/ Tomas E. Suarez
Name: Tomas E. Suarez
Title: Group Vice President
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Reef Oil & Gas Income and Development Fund III, L.P.  (the Partnership) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Mauceli, principal executive officer of Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P., the managing general partner of Reef Oil & Gas Income and Development Fund III, L.P., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(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 Partnership.

 
| Date:  April 15, 2011 |                                                                                                                                                                        |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                                                                                                                                                        |
|                       | /s/   Michael J. Mauceli                                                                                                                                                    |
|                       | Michael   J. Mauceli                                                                                                                                                        |
|                       | Manager   and Member of Reef Oil & Gas Partners, GP, LLC, the general partner of   Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P., the Managing General Partner of the   Partnership |
|                       | (P*rincipal Executive Officer*)                                                                                                                                             |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

JEFF MONEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) NO. 1:14-CV-253

)

KENDALLVILLE PLACE )

APARTMENTS, PHASE II, LLC, )

d/b/a NELSON ESTATES )

APARTMENTS, PHASE II )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), filed by

Defendant, Kendallville Place Apartments, Phase II, LLC, on

September 23, 2014. (DE #10.) For the reasons set forth below,

the motion is DENIED AS MOOT. On September 24, 2014, Magistrate

Judge Cosbey granted Plaintiff until October 6, 2014, to file an

amended complaint. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed

on October 6, 2014. (DE #14.) An amended complaint becomes

controlling once it is filed because the prior pleading is

withdrawn by operation of law. Johnson v. Dossey, 515 F.3d 778,

780 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park

Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1057 (7th Cir. 1998). 

Because the First Amended Complaint supersedes the original
Complaint, the pending motion to dismiss (DE # 10) is DENIED AS

MOOT. 

DATED: October 31, 2014 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge 

United States District Court

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

DARRON A. WEBB (01) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 3:14-CR-091 JD 

OPINION AND ORDER

Now before the Court is a Motion to Modify Sentence filed by the Defendant, Darron A. 

Webb. [DE 119]. Mr. Webb’s motion seeks a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. However, Mr. Webb already made such 

a request in a letter filed June 8, 2015, and the Court denied that request in an order dated June 

10, 2015. In that order, the Court found for two separate reasons that Mr. Webb was ineligible 

for relief: first, he was sentenced after Amendment 782 had taken effect, so he already received 

the benefit of that reduction at the time of sentencing; and second, he entered a binding plea 

agreement to a sentence of 120 months, so his sentence was not based on the sentencing range 

under the Guidelines but on the terms of the plea agreement. [DE 89]. And since the Court has 

already denied an identical request by Mr. Webb, there is a third reason for denying his present 

request, which is that a defendant can only file a single motion per retroactive amendment. 

United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that a defendant is not “entitled 

to more than one opportunity to request a lower sentence, for any given change in the Guideline 

range.”); see also United States v. Beard, 745 F.3d 288, 292 (7th Cir. 2014) (“In other words, 

prisoners have only one bite at the apple per retroactive amendment to the sentencing 

guidelines.”). If Mr. Webb believed that the Court’s prior denial was erroneous, his recourse was 

to file a timely notice of appeal as to that order, but the time to do so has long since passed. 
2 

Mr. Webb also argues that his Guideline range was miscalculated at the time of 

sentencing because it held him accountable for over 700 grams of heroin for his relevant 

conduct, not just for the 100 grams he was charged in the indictment with possessing with intent 

to distribute. However, as the Court has also explained to Mr. Webb before—this time in 

denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, [DE 112]—that calculation was proper: a 

defendant’s “offense level is calculated by determining the amount of drugs associated within the 

same course of the defendant’s conduct, and not simply the amount associated with the particular 

offenses of conviction.” United States v. Redmond, 667 F.3d 863, 875 (7th Cir. 2012). Moreover, 

a court cannot consider that type of argument in a motion under § 3582(c)(2) anyway. Dillon v. 

United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010) (“Because the aspects of his sentence that Dillon seeks 

to correct were not affected by the Commission’s amendment to § 2D1.1, they are outside the 

scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2) . . . .”). 

Accordingly, Mr. Webb’s motion for a sentence reduction [DE 119] is DENIED. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: March 9, 2016 

 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CR-106-JTM-PRC

 )

KATHRYN JACKSON, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON PLEAS OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT KATHRYN JACKSON

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant Kathryn Jackson’s request to enter pleas 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 November 14, 2014, with the consent of Defendant Kathryn Jackson, counsel for Defendant

Kathryn Jackson, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant Kathryn Jackson pleas of guilty were 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 Kathryn Jackson under

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

and of counsel for Defendant Kathryn Jackson,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant Kathryn Jackson understands the nature of the charges against her to which

the pleas are offered;

(2) that Defendant Kathryn Jackson understands her right to trial by jury, to persist in her pleas

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

(3) that Defendant Kathryn Jackson understands what the maximum possible sentences are,

including the effect of the supervised release terms, and Defendant Kathryn Jackson understands that

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

circumstances;

(4) that the pleas of guilty by Defendant Kathryn Jackson have been knowingly and voluntarily

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

(5) that Defendant Kathryn Jackson is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant Kathryn Jackson understands that her answers may later be used against her

in a prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there are factual bases for Defendant Kathryn Jackson’s pleas; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Kathryn Jackson’s pleas of guilty to the offenses

charged in Counts 1-3 of the Felony Information and that Defendant Kathryn Jackson be adjudged

guilty of the offenses charged in Counts 1-3 of the Felony Information and have sentences imposed.

A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and Recommendation be accepted and

Kathryn Jackson 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 14th day of November, 2014.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

Honorable James T. Moody
EX-34.5
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG

Ernst & Young LLP
220 South Sixth Street, Ste 1400
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509

Phone (612) 343-1000
www.ey.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
U.S. Bank National Association

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the
Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
SEC's Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform
(the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, except for
servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii),
1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(iv)-(xv), which the Company has determined
are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the
servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with
the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test 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 less than all of the individual asset backed transactions
and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the
servicing activities related to 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 transactions and servicing 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
or amounts 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 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 servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 12, 2008

A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
##### 



Exhibit 24
  WILLIAMS
    PIPELINE GP LLC
  POWER OF
    ATTORNEY
  Form 10-K
  Form 10-K
      /s/  Steven
    J. Malcolm

/s/  Donald
    R. ChappelSteven J. Malcolm

Donald R. ChappelChairman of the Board President and
    Chief Executive Officer
    (Principal Executive Officer)

Chief Financial Officer and Director
    (Principal Financial Officer)   
      /s/  Phillip
    D. Wright

/s/  Rodney
    J. SailorPhillip D. Wright

Rodney J. SailorChief Operating Officer and Director

Treasurer and Director/s/  Stephen
    C. Beasley

/s/  Emmitt
    C. HouseStephen C. Beasley

Emmitt C. HouseDirector

Director




---



##### 



By:
    /s/  James
    J. Bender       /s/  Brian
    K. Shore




---



##### 



WILLIAMS
    PIPELINE GP LLC
  Secretarys
    Certificate
    RESOLVED Form 10-K
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
(June 21, 1985)

#### In the Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena No. 2573/85. Summers G., by William Lupo, Guardian ad Litem, Appellant; Elizabeth Holtzman, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.), dated May 20, 1985, which denied an application to quash a Grand Jury subpoena.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

At the outset, we note that while an order determining an application to quash a subpoena relating to a criminal proceeding which was issued after the commencement of the criminal action (CPL 1.20 [17]) is not directly appealable by the immediate parties to that criminal action *(People v Santos,*64 NY2d 702; *cf. Matter of Morgenthau v Hopes,*55 AD2d 255, *lv dismissed*41 NY2d 1007), where, as here, the individual seeking appellate review of the order is not a party to the underlying criminal action, the order is final and appealable as to that individual *(People v Johnson,*103 AD2d 754; *People v Marin,*86 AD2d 40).

*892We conclude that the appellant’s application to quash the Grand Jury subpoena based on the existence of an alleged parent/child privilege is premature. A witness cannot raise the issue of privilege until he or she actually appears and is questioned *(Matter of Cunningham v Nadjari,*39 NY2d 314; *Matter of A. & M.,*61 AD2d 425). Accordingly, the application to quash the Grand Jury subpoena was properly denied. We note that a guardian ad litem should be appointed to represent the child in any further proceedings. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
EX-33.2
(logo) Countrywide
HOME LOANS

2900 MADERA RD
SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065
(805) 955-1000

Management Assertion

February 28, 2008

As of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, Countrywide Financial
Corporation and subsidiaries, including its wholly-owned subsidiary, Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc. ("CHL"), and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of CHL, (collectively, the "Company") have complied in
all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation for
Mortgage Bankers (USAP) for residential mortgage-backed securities, (securities
collateralized by residential mortgage loans, including prime, alternative loan
products, sub-prime, HELOC and closed seconds) publicly issued prior to January
1, 2006, publicly issued transactions issued by any government sponsored entity,
all non publicly issued transactions, and loans held in portfolio at Countrywide
Bank, FSB for which the Company provides servicing functions as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2007. As of and for this same period, the Company had in
effect a mortgage bankers' (fidelity) bond in the amount of $200,000,000 and an
errors and omissions policy in the amount of $175,000,000.


/s/ Steve Bailey
Steve Bailey
Senior Managing Director and
Chief Executive Officer, Loan Administration


/s/ Kevin Meyers
Kevin Meyers
Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer,
Loan Administration
Eric C. WILSON, petitioner, v. W. Steven FLAHERTY, Superintendent, Virginia Department of State Police.

No. 12-986.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
#### Keith Lemont SANDERS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. W. Kimber EXTINE, Deputy Sheriff of York County, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-7928.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 16, 2004.

Decided: April 27, 2004.

Keith Lemont Sanders, Appellant pro se.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Keith Lemont Sanders appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 *116U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Sanders v. Extine,*No. CA-03-727-2 (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 27, 2003 & entered Oct. 28, 2003). 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.

*AFFIRMED*