alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-35.10
(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.

March 01, 2008

Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Inc.
245 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10167

Attn: Corporate Trust

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Bear Stearns ALT-A Trust, Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-8

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 1, 2005, the
undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer), hereby
certifies the following for the 2007 calendar year or portion thereof:

(a) The Servicing Officer has reviewed the activities of such Master Servicer
during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof and its performance under
this Agreement.

(b) To the best of such Servicing Officer's knowledge, based on such review,
such Master Servicer has performed and fulfilled its duties, responsibilities
and obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout such
year, or, if there has been a default in the fulfillment of any such duties,
responsibilities or obligations, specifying each such default known to such
Servicing Oficer and the nature and status thereof.

(c) Nothing has come to the attention of such Servicing Officer to lead such
Servicing Officer to believe that the Servicer has failed to perform any of its
duties, responsibilities and obligations under its Servicing Agreement in all
material respects throughout such year, or, if there has been a material default
in the performance or fulfillment of any such duties, responsibilities or
obligations, specifying each such default known to such Servicing Officer and
the nature and status thereof.

Certified By:
/s/ William Augustin
WILLIAM AUGUSTIN
Vice President
#### Magdaleno Atilano LOPEZ-ESPARZA; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-70107.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2004.*

Decided May 17, 2004.

Gary Finn, Esq., Attorney at Law, Indio, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Robbin K. Blaya, Esq., Earle B. Wilson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: MCKEOWN, BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BREYER,** District Judge.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found petitioners Magdaleno Lopez-Esparza, Maria Catalina Lopez, and Rodrigo Lopez-Colin (“Lopez-Esparza”) removable under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(a)(i), and granted all three petitioners voluntary departure. Lopez-Esparza appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), claiming that removal proceedings should not have been commenced against the family because the Form 1-589 asylum application, which evidenced their alienage and removability, was incomplete and fraudulently induced. The BIA dismissed the appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Lopez-Esparza petitions for review of the BIA’s dismissal of the appeal and asks us to terminate removal proceedings or, in the alternative, remand the case to the BIA to rule on the evidentiary arguments.

To the extent that Lopez-Esparza appeals dismissal of the claim that removal proceedings should not have been commenced, we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Lopez-Esparza did not sufficiently raise the evidentiary issue regarding the admissibility of Form 1-589 before the BIA. Consequently, we are foreclosed from reviewing that challenge to the order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).

PETITION DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Richard KITT, petitioner, v. Levern COHEN, Warden.

No. 12-9016.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
#### VALENTINO et al., Respondents, v. SCHANTZ et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

July 8, 1913.)

Action by Pasquale Valentino and another against Philip Schantz and another.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment appealed from modified, by striking out the provision for extra allowance, and the words "or thing whatsoever" in the fifth provision of the judgment, and, as modified, affirmed, with costs. See, also, 153 App. Div. 934, 138 N. Y. Supp. 1147.

HOWARD, J., not sitting.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

          I, Xiao Ping Zhang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment to Quarterly Report of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC. on Form 10-QSB/A for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC.

| Date:  January 31, 2006   |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
|                           |   |
|  /s/ Xiao Ping Zhang |   |
|                                |   |
|  Xiao Ping Zhang          |   |
|  Chief Executive Officer  |   |
Douglas Marshall MATHIS, petitioner, v. Wayne CARPENTER, Warden.

No. 13-6532.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1
  Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant to
 18 U.S. C. Section 1350
 as adopted pursuant to
 Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Retail Opportunity Investments Corp. (the "Company"), hereby certifies to the best of his knowledge on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009
(the "Form 10-K"), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:  March 11, 2010
By:  /s/ Stuart A. TanzName:  Stuart A. Tanz
Title:  Chief Executive Officer
 
 The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Retail Opportunity Investments Corp. (the "Company"), hereby certifies to the best of his knowledge on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009
(the "Form 10-K"), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:  March 11, 2010
By:  /s/ John B. RocheName:  John B. Roche
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
 
 Pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-47551, dated March 21, 2003, this certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated be reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
Charles Litton MORRIS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D18-5103

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 2, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Presidential Documents

27399

Federal Register

Vol. 60, No. 99

Tuesday, May 23, 1995

Title 3—

The President

Proclamation 6803 of May 19, 1995

National Maritime Day, 1995

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

The United States owes much to our merchant sailors. At our Nation’s

beginning, these outstanding citizens opened new avenues of commerce

and helped nurture a fledgling democracy into a beacon of freedom for

people around the world. Since President Franklin D. Roosevelt first proclaimed National Maritime Day 62 years ago, the U.S. Merchant Marine

has built on its legacy of patriotism. Its great tradition of courage and

valor is an inspiration to all Americans.

This year, as we honor those who served and sacrificed for our Nation

during World War II, the contributions of the U.S. Merchant Marine are

a special source of pride. We will always remember the heroism of those

mariners and the dangers they faced to protect our liberty.

America’s Merchant Marine and civilian seafarers have put themselves at

risk time and again to support our Armed Forces. They provided pivotal

service during OPERATION DESERT STORM, during America’s humanitarian

mission in Somalia, and throughout OPERATION RESTORE DEMOCRACY

in Haiti.

Today, our country remains determined to maintain a strong U.S. flag presence on the high seas, a commitment central to advancing our Nation’s

national and economic security. I urge Americans to join efforts in support

of maritime revitalization legislation and our ongoing shipbuilding production program. Americans’ pioneering spirit has endowed our Nation with

the most innovative maritime technologies and the most skilled maritime

labor force on Earth. Working together, we can preserve this critical advantage

for generations to come.

In recognition of the importance of the U.S. Merchant Marine, the Congress,

by a joint resolution approved May 20, 1933, has designated May 22 of

each year as ‘‘National Maritime Day’’ and has authorized and requested

the President to issue annually a proclamation calling for its appropriate

observance.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States

of America, do hereby proclaim May 22, 1995, as National Maritime Day.

I urge the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate

programs, ceremonies, and activities and by displaying the flag of the United

States at their homes and in their communities. I also request that all

ships sailing under the American flag dress ship on that day.
27400 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 1995 / Presidential Documents

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day

of May, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-five, and

of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred

[FR Doc. 95–12847

Filed 5–22–95; 11:24 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P

and nineteenth.

œ–
Richard Leon LOUGHMILLER, petitioner, v. Brian DUFFY, Warden.

No. 13-6665.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 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

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DENNIS FOREMAN, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-50-RLM-CAN

)

DePUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.; DePUY )

INC, DePUY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED;)

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & )

JOHNSON SERVICES, INC.; and )

JOHNSON & JOHNSON )

INTERNATIONAL; )

)

Defendants )

OPINION and ORDER

The defense has not yet raised a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over

this matter, but the court has the obligation to inquire into its own subject matter

jurisdiction. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2007). The

plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege the existence of jurisdiction. It alleges that

“Plaintiff Dennis Formean is, and at all times relevant to the Complaint was, a

resident of Chesapeake, Virginia.” Residency is not citizenship, Held v. Held, 137

F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998), and jurisdiction depends on citizenship of each

party at the time the case begins. Denlinger v. Brennan, 87 F.3d 214, 216 (7th

Cir. 1996). The plaintiffs must show the citizenship of each party as of the date

the complaint was filed. Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993). 

case 3:12-cv-00050-RLM-CAN document 5 filed 01/27/12 page 1 of 2
Although the case might be subject to dismissal on these grounds, Thomas

v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d at 534, the court instead affords the plaintiffs

twenty days from the date of this order within which to file an amended complaint

alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: January 27, 2012 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court

2

case 3:12-cv-00050-RLM-CAN document 5 filed 01/27/12 page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12308]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 516-176 South Carolina]


South Carolina Electric and Gas Company; Notice of Availability 
of Environmental Assessment

May 15, 1995.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Regulations, 18 CFR Part 
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47910), the Office of Hydropower Licensing 
(OHL) has reviewed the application for the lease of 117 acres of 
project lands for the development of a county park (Saluda Shoals Park) 
on the Saluda River below the dam at Lake Murray. The park would 
provide multi-use, land-based recreation facilities and would be 
operated by the Irmo-Chapin Recreation Commission.
    The staff of OHL's Division of Project Compliance and 
Administration has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 
proposed action. In the EA, the staff concludes that the licensee's 
proposals would not constitute a major federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the EA are available for review in the Reference and 
Information Center, Room 3308, of the Commission's Offices at 941 North 
Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12308 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EX-34.9
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
Suite 500
191 West Nationwide Boulevard
Columbus, OH 43215-2568



Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors
Nationwide Life Insurance Company:

We have examined management's assessment, included in the accompanying
Management Assessment of Compliance, that Nationwide Life Insurance Company
(the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB relating to the servicing
of certain loans it services within the commercial mortgage-backed security
transactions listed in Appendix A (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007, except for the servicing criteria (d)(1)(iii); d(2)(iii);
(d)(2)(vi); (d)(3)(i)-(iv); (d)(4)(iii); (d)(4)(vi)-(vii); (d)(4)(ix)-(xi);
(d)(4)(xiii) and (d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable
to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform. Appendix A of
management's assessment identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and
securities defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assessment about the
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted 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 specified above 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 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 assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the ended December 31, 2007 is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Columbus, Ohio
February 27, 2008

KPMG LLP a US limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
In re Christopher S. BARKSDALE, petitioner.

No. 12-9829.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**Exhibit 99.1** **REPORT OF    INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     The Board of Directors of Williams Pipeline GP LLC     We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Williams    Pipeline GP LLC as of December 31, 2007. This balance sheet    is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our    responsibility is to express an opinion on this balance sheet    based on our audit.     We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the    Public Company Oversight Accounting Board (United States). Those    standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain    reasonable assurance about whether the balance sheet is free of    material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit    of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.    Our audit included consideration of internal control over    financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures    that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the    purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the    Company’s internal control over financial reporting.    Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes    examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and    disclosures in the balance sheet, assessing the accounting    principles used and significant estimates made by management,    and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We    believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our    opinion.     In our opinion, the balance sheet referred to above presents    fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of    Williams Pipeline GP LLC at December 31, 2007 in conformity    with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.     Ernst &Young LLP     Houston Texas    February 26, 2008
Exhibit 99.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

         I, Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, Chief Executive Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

              (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
              quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with
              the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
              Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


                                                 PHOTOMEDEX INC.


Dated: May 14, 2003
                                                By: /s/ Jeffrey F. O'Donnell
                                                    -------------------------
                                                    Jeffrey F. O'Donnell
                                                    Chief Executive Officer


                                     E-99.1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

RIK LINEBACK, Regional Director of 

the Twenty-Fifth Region of the National 

Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf 

of the NATIONAL LABOR 

RELATIONS BOARD, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

SMI/DIVISION OF DCX-CHOL 

ENTERPRISES, INC., 

 Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:14-CV-228 JD 

ORDER

The Court previously entered a temporary injunction under section 10(j) of the National 

Labor Relations Act pending the conclusion of proceedings before the National Labor Relations 

Board. The injunction stated that it “shall terminate once the National Labor Relations Board has 

rendered a final decision in this matter.” [DE 24]. The Petitioner has now filed a status report 

indicating that the Board issued its final decision in December 2017. Accordingly, the injunction 

is no longer in effect and this case is now closed. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: February 7, 2018 

 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court 

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00228-JD-SLC document 41 filed 02/07/18 page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORTH WAYNE DIVISION

DONALD P. WIES, JR., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CAVALRY SPV I, LLC and WRIGHT, LERCH 

& LITOW, LLP,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 14 cv 187-RLM-RBC

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant Cavalry SPV I, LLC (“Cavalry”) and Wright, Lerch & Litow, LLP (“Wright”) 

(collectively, “Defendants”), by counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) hereby move to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice. In 

support of this Motion, Defendants submit and expressly incorporate their Memorandum

in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed 

contemporaneously herewith.

Dated: September 2, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

CAVALRY SPV I, LLC and 

WRIGHT, LERCH & LITOW, LLP

 By: /s/ Sulejman F. Dizdarevic

One of its attorneys

Anna-Katrina S. Christakis

Sulejman F. Dizdarevic

Pilgrim Christakis LLP

53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1515

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Ph. (312) 361-3457

Fax (312) 939-0983

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00187-RLM-SLC document 16 filed 09/02/14 page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Sulejman F. Dizdarevic, an attorney, certifies that on September 2, 2014, he 

electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF 

system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:

Robert E. Duff

Indiana Consumer Law Group

The Law Office of Robert E. Duff

P.O. Box 7251

Fishers, Indiana 46037

robert@robertdufflaw.com

/s/ Sulejman F. Dizdarevic

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00187-RLM-SLC document 16 filed 09/02/14 page 2 of 2