alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Management Committee

BMW Financial Services NA, LLC



We have examined BMW Financial Services NA, LLCs (the Company) compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for Asset Backed Notes, BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2007-1 (except for the servicing criteria described in the following paragraph), which the Company has determined as being applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset−backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2007 and for the period from November 2, 2007 (the date of issuance of the BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2007-1) to December 31, 2007. Management is responsible for BMW Financial Services NA, LLCs compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on BMW Financial Services NA, LLCs compliance based on our examination.



The Company has determined that the servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x) (A)-(C), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii) are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset−backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2007 and for the period from November 2, 2007 (the date of issuance of the BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2007-1) to December 31, 2007.



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 in the first paragraph of this report and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. 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, BMW Financial Services NA, LLC complied, in all material respects, with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of December 31, 2007 and for the period from November 2, 2007 to December 31, 2007.



/s/ J.H. Cohn LLP



Roseland, New Jersey

March 14, 2008
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1813 

To require the payment of interest on amounts owed by the United States 

pursuant to the reliquidation of certain entries under the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 and the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 

Corrections Act of 2004. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To require the payment of interest on amounts owed by 

the United States pursuant to the reliquidation of certain 

entries under the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 

2000 and the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON AMOUNTS OWED 

4 PURSUANT TO THE RELIQUIDATION OF CER5 TAIN ENTRIES. 

6 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Sections 1404(b), 1405(b), and 

7 subsection (c) of each of sections 1408 through 1411 of 
2 

•HR 1813 IH 

1 the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 (Public Law 

2 106–476; 19 U.S.C. 1654 note) and subsection (c) of each 

3 of sections 1517 through 1536 of the Miscellaneous Trade 

4 and Technical Corrections Act of 2004 (Public Law 108– 

5 429; 19 U.S.C. 1654 note) are amended by inserting ‘‘, 

6 with interest provided for by law on the liquidation or re7 liquidation of the entries,’’ after ‘‘under subsection (a)’’. 

8 (b) RELIQUIDATION AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST.— 

9 Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 

10 of this Act, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs 

11 and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland 

12 Security shall— 

13 (1) reliquidate each of the entries specified in 

14 the provisions of law amended by subsection (a); and 

15 (2) provide payment of interest owed by the 

16 United States by reason of the amendments made by 

17 subsection (a) for the period beginning on the date 

18 of deposit of estimated duties and ending on the 

19 date of reliquidation under paragraph (1). 

Æ
United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana

NYKAZA GEE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-442 JVB

v. )

)

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Nykaza Gee, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint, but that pleading makes it

unclear whether he is trying to sue two defendants or three. On the first and second pages,

“Officer Jarvarish Officer Brady Janovitz” is named as the first defendant. On page 2, Officer

Eric Parrish is identified as a second defendant. Gee has only submitted a summons form and

USM-285's for Officers Brady Janovitz and Eric Parrish, not for Officer Javarish. In his amended

complaint, Gee first alleges he was assaulted by Officer Brady Janovitz and Eric Parrish, (DE 7

at 3-5), but then alleges it was Officer Jarvarish and Eric Parrish who assaulted him. (Id. at 8-

12.) It is unclear whether “Officer Jarvarish Officer Brady Janovitz” is a single defendant or

Officer Jarvarish is one defendant and Officer Brady Janovitz is another defendant. If these are

different defendants, Gee must provide the court with sufficient service documents for Officer

Jarvarish.

Because it is unclear what defendants he is trying to sue, the court: (1) STRIKES the

amended complaint (DE 7); (2) DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank

Prisoner Complaint 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form and send it to Nykaza Gee along with 2 blank

summons forms and 1 blank USM-285 form; (3) GRANTS Nykaza Gee until April 4, 2016, to

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 9 filed 03/01/16 page 1 of 2
file a second amended complaint clearly identifying who he is suing and return the summons and

USM-285 forms properly completed for any newly named defendant; and (4) CAUTIONS

Nykaza Gee that if he does not respond by the deadline, his case will be closed without further

notice. 

SO ORDERED on March 1, 2016.

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen

United States District Judge

Hammond Division

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00442-JVB-MGG document 9 filed 03/01/16 page 2 of 2
William Peter NEW, petitioner, v. Domingo URIBE, Jr., Warden, et al.

No. 13-6794.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,281
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,459
<ALLOWANCES>                                       850
<INVENTORY>                                      7,665
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,416
<PP&E>                                          28,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,991
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,652
<SALES>                                         31,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,189
<CGS>                                           18,503
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,721
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (177)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,447)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       169
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,616)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,616)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Walter E. Skowronski, President of the Company, certify, that:



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



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



|              |  |                               
|------------- |  | ------------------------------
|July 25, 2007 |  | /s/ WALTER E. SKOWRONSKI      
|              |  | Walter E. Skowronski President



21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

ANDREW ZENTZ, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL NO. 1:13cv139

)

ADVANCED ASSEMBLY, LLC, )

)

 Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss without prejudice, filed by the

plaintiff, Andrew Zentz (“Zentz”), on October 28, 2013. On November 13, 2013, the defendant,

Advanced Assembly, LLC, (“Advanced Assembly”), filed a response indicating that it does not

object to Zentz’s motion.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a “plaintiff may dismiss an action without a

court order by filing: (I) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a

motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have

appeared.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A). In the present case, Advanced Assembly has answered the

complaint, thus requiring stipulation of the parties prior to dismissal. Advanced Assembly states

that its response to the motion should be deemed its stipulation to the dismissal.

Accordingly, as the parties have stipulated to dismissal without prejudice, Zentz’s motion

will be granted and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 

 Entered: January 13, 2014.

 s/ William C. Lee 

 William C. Lee, Judge

 United States District Court

case 1:13-cv-00139-WCL-RBC document 32 filed 01/13/14 page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CR-42-TLS 

) 

AUTUMN J. CARTER ) 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

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

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 103], filed on July 13, 2016. The Defendant has waived objection to 

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

Recommendation [ECF No. 103] 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), if applicable and necessary, the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 

Three (3) 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 August 15, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive
Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of G REIT, Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) the accompanying Annual Report on
    Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
    December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies
    with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
    Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
    Act of 1934, as amended; and
|
| | (ii) the information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                           



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ ANTHONY W. THOMPSON
| |                        
| | Anthony W. Thompson    
| | Chief Executive Officer

Date: April 22, 2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document. The signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to G REIT, Inc. and
will be retained by G REIT, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Discussion of 

“Language Frictions in Consumer Credit” 

&

“Price Discrimination and Mortgage Choice” 

Neil Bhutta*

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the Federal Reserve
Homeownership rates are much lower for LEP 

households
Do language barriers reduce access to credit?

• If so, translating documents (application form, disclosures, etc.) to 

other languages might help

• Loan officers may be important (e.g. Frame, Huang, Mayer, and Sunderam

2022)

• Natural experiment: What happens after FHFA Language Access Plan 

is implemented in 2018?

• More mortgage applications from LEP populations?

• Better mortgage terms for LEP borrowers? 
Impressive empirical work!

• Uses many datasets

• NSMO, ACS, HMDA, GSE,...

• ML techniques to identify LEP applicants

• Natural experiment is compelling 

• Looks at a large set of outcomes
NSMO results: Large effects on LEP interest 

rates
NSMO results: Large effects on LEP interest 

rates

• Implausibly large? Effect is about 5x larger than the average rate difference 

for LEP borrowers
HMDA+ results

• Plausibility: What is the pretreatment LEP rate gap? 

• Assessing the magnitude: 

• How much would it cost someone 

to buy down their rate 5 basis 

points? 

About 0.2 – 0.25 “discount points”

or, $400-$500 
Effects on homeownership?

• Are LEP families more likely to become homeowners?

• Could test directly using ACS data
Two other comments/suggestions

• Measuring points in HMDA

• Be sure to account for “lender credits”

• Look at “net origination fees” instead of discount points:

Net origination fees = origination charges – lender credits 

• Measuring LEP in NSMO

• Speaking English at home (X82) appears uncorrelated with your LEP measure 

(based on X14)

Suggests yours is a noisy measure of LEP status? 

Results robust to using X82? If not, why not? 
Do mortgage borrowers in the UK choose the 

lowest cost mortgage?

• Fascinating data

• Clever empirical work

• Great to see studies of major markets outside U.S.
UK mortgage market differs sharply from U.S. 

• No 30-year fixed rate mortgage

• Most people get a “hybrid adjustable rate”

• Fixed for 2, 3, or 5 years, then floating

• Large penalties for pre-paying within the fixed-rate window

• Several consumer protections not present in the U.S.

• Banks must offer same menu to all borrowers

• Fiduciary standards for loan brokers 
Borrowers face many options
Borrowers face many options
Do mortgage borrowers in the UK choose the 

lowest cost mortgage?

• Which metric should we focus on?

• “Strongly dominated” choices are prevalent

• This metric seems compelling: clear-cut, costly mistake
Rich get richer
IB 

Union Calendar No. 187 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1728 

[Report No. 109–338] 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the French Colonial Heritage Area in the State 

of Missouri as a unit of the National Park System, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2005 

Mr. CARNAHAN (for himself and Mrs. EMERSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

DECEMBER 13, 2005 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on April 20, 2005] 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the French Colonial 

Heritage Area in the State of Missouri as a unit of 

the National Park System, 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, 
2 

•HR 1728 RH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘French Colonial Herit3 age National Historic Site Study Act of 2005’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

5 In this Act: 

6 (1) AREA.—The term ‘‘Area’’ means the French 

7 Colonial Heritage Area, which includes the Bequette8 Ribault, St. Gemme-Amoureaux, and Wilhauk homes, 

9 and the related and supporting historical assets lo10 cated in Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. 

11 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

12 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di13 rector of the National Park Service. 

14 SEC. 3. STUDY. 

15 (a) In General.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

16 on which funds are made available to carry out this Act, 

17 the Secretary shall, in consultation with the State of Mis18 souri— 

19 (1) complete a study on the suitability and feasi20 bility of designating the Area as a unit of the Na21 tional Park System, which shall include the potential 

22 impact that designation of the area as a national her23 itage area is likely to have on land within the pro24 posed area or bordering the proposed area that is pri25 vately owned at the time that the study is conducted; 

26 and 
3 

•HR 1728 RH 

1 (2) submit to the Committee on Resources of the 

2 House of Representatives and the Committee on En3 ergy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report de4 scribing the findings of the study. 

5 (b) Contents.—The study under subsection (a) shall be 

6 conducted in accordance with Public Law 91–383 (16 

7 U.S.C. 1a–1 et seq.). 
Union Calendar No. 187 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1728 

[Report No. 109–338] 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study 

and for other purposes. Missouri as a unit of the National Park System, French Colonial Heritage Area in the State of the suitability and feasibility of designating the 

DECEMBER 13, 2005 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
#### In re TRIMM.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 3, 1899.)

In the matter of the adoption of Matilda Trimm (otherwise known as “Katie Hoefle”) by John N. Hoefle and Barbara C. Hoefle.

No opinion. Motion denied, without costs. See 55 N. Y. Supp. 1150.
Byron UNDERWOOD, petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES.

No. 13-364.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

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

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

 

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 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

RUDY Y. KIM (CA SBN 199426) 

RKim@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

DECLARATION OF JAMIE LEIGH 

Date: June 8, 2017 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Ctrm: F, 15th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 383 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 383 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 2
#### SMITH, Respondent, v. WESTCHESTER FIRE INS. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July *114625, 1913.)

Action by Sidney W. Smith against the Westchester Fire Insurance Company.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. ’
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:14-CR-030 JD

)

DEMARCUS MORAN )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation upon

a plea of guilty issued on July 14, 2014 [DE 23]. Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those

findings and recommendations, ACCEPTS defendant Demarcus Moran’s plea of guilty, and FINDS

the defendant guilty of Count 1 of the Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: July 30, 2014 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
H H H

H H H

550 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20429-9990

www.fdic.gov

FDIC-003-2018