alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1

Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc.



|                                    |  |                                      
|----------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|CA Capital Management Services, LLC |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition I, LLC        
|KBS Debt Holdings II, LLC           |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition II, LLC       
|KBS Debt Holdings II X, LLC         |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition III, LLC      
|KBS Limited Partnership II          |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition IV, LLC       
|KBS REIT Holdings II LLC            |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition V, LLC        
|KBS REIT Properties II, LLC         |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition VI, LLC       
|KBS REIT II Finance LLC             |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition VII, LLC      
|KBS TRS Services, LLC               |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition VIII, LLC     
|KBS II Securities LLC               |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition IX, LLC       
|KBSII 100-200 Campus Drive, LLC     |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition X, LLC        
|KBSII 300-600 Campus Drive, LLC     |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition XI, LLC       
|KBSII 300 North LaSalle, LLC        |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition XII, LLC      
|KBSII 350 Plumeria, LLC             |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition XIII, LLC     
|KBSII 445 South Figueroa, LLC       |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition XIV, LLC      
|KBSII 601 Tower, LLC                |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition XV, LLC       
|KBSII 2500 Regent Boulevard, LLC    |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition XVI, LLC      
|KBSII Crescent VIII, LLC            |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition XVII, LLC     
|KBSII Emerald View, LLC             |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition XVIII, LLC    
|KBSII Gateway Corporate Center, LLC |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition XIX, LLC      
|KBSII Granite Tower, LLC            |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition XX, LLC       
|KBSII Hartman Business Center, LLC  |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition XXI, LLC      
|KBSII Horizon Tech Center, LLC      |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition XXII, LLC     
|KBSII Mountain View, LLC            |  | KBSII REIT Acquisition XXIII, LLC    
|KBSII National City Tower, LLC      |  | KBSII Torrey Reserve West, LLC       
|KBSII One Main Place, LLC           |  | KBSII I-81 Industrial Portfolio Trust
|KBSII Pierre LaClede Center, LLC    |  | KBSII I-81 Industrial Portfolio, LLC 
|KBSII Plano Business Park, LLC      |  | KBSII Willow Oaks, LLC               
|KBSII CityPlace Tower, LLC          |  | KBSII Two Westlake Park, LLC
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO SECURITIES
ACT RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Del Taco Restaurant Properties I;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: May 14, 2007
    
    /s/ Shirlene Lopez
Shirlene Lopez
President
#### WATSON v. BEAVER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 20, 1913.)

Action by John H. Watson against William Beaver and others. T. W. Henry, of New York City, for appellants. E. M. Boyle, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed. See, also, 154 App. Div. 934, 139 N. Y. Supp. 1149.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 VS. 

JARVIS TOLBERT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CAUSE NO. 3:14-CR-34-RLM

O R D E R 

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

recommendations upon a plea of guilty on August 6, 2014. Accordingly, the 

court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 37), ACCEPTS 

defendant Jarvis Tolbert’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant guilty of 

Count 1 of the Indictment, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 

SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: August 26, 2014 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
Frank Edward GABLE, petitioner, v. OREGON.

No. 13-6701.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Oregon denied.
J

- S08035

- 23

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

COOPER SCOTT MILLER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 605 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 24, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 01

- CR

- 0000904

- 2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J. *

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED: MAY 8, 2023

I agree that we are bound by the en banc Majority decisions in Richards

and Moroz to treat Appellant’s prior acceptance of ARD as a first DUI offense.

See Commonwealth v. Richards , 284 A.3d 214, 220

- 21 (Pa. Super. 2022),

appeal granted , 518 MAL 2022 (Pa. Mar. 15, 2023) ( en banc );

Commonwealth v. Moroz , 284 A.3d 227, 233 (Pa. Super. 2022) ( en banc ). 1

However, for the reasons expressed in my Dissenting Opinions, I believe

Richards and Moroz were wrongly decided. See Richards , 284 A.3d at 222

-

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See also Commonwealth v. Verbeck , 290 A.3d 260 (Pa. 2023);

Commonwealth v. Hummel , __ A.3d __, 1147 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. April 4, 2023).J

- S08035

- 23

- 2

-

26 (Dissenting Op., McCaffery, J.); Moroz , 284 A.3d at 235

- 39 (Dissenting

Op., McCaffery, J.). Thus, I am con strained to concur in this decision.

Judge Colins joins the Concurring Statement.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-17-TLS

)

CURTIS WITTMER )

OPINION AND ORDER

On December 12, 2014, the Defendant filed a Motion for Return of Personal Property

[ECF No. 57], in which he requests the return of $44,300.00 seized by the Government as a

result of a drug investigation in this matter. On December 24, 2014, the Government filed a

Response [ECF No. 58], contending that the requested property has already been returned to the

Defendant by way of an electronic transfer to the Defendant’s bank account. The Defendant has

not filed a reply to the Government’s Response. 

The Court gives the Defendant up to and including Monday, February 16, 2015, to

respond for the purpose of identifying any portion of the Government’s factual allegations to

which he disagrees, and to identify the remaining factual disputes that may exist. The Defendant

should specifically explain the basis for any disagreement and identify any person who can

support his representations regarding the status of the property at issue.

SO ORDERED on January 7, 2015.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CR-21-TLS 

 ) 

JOSEPH R. HOLMAN ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

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

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 27], filed on November 9, 2015. The Defendant has waived 

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

Findings and Recommendation [ECF No. 27] 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 One (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 November 25, 2015. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

DAVID OMAR MENDOZA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-1098 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Respondent. ) ) Opinion filed August 30, 2019. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Christopher C. Nash, Judge. Julianne M. Holt, Public Defender, Tampa, for Petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.
SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
2018 ANNUAL REPORT

FEDERAL 

DEPOSIT 

INSURANCE 

CORPORATION
EXHIBIT 31.4

Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Mardel A. Graffy, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Rubicon Technology, Inc.; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 29, 2016 |  | By: |  | /s/ Mardel A. Graffy   
|                     |  |     |  | Mardel A. Graffy       
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### SMITH v. DIXON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

May 3, 1912.)

1. Bills and Notes (§ 99*)—What Law Governs.

A note, signed in one state and negotiated in another, where the maker procured it to be sent for negotiation, is governed by the laws of the latter state.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. § 213; Dee. Dig. § 99.*]

2. Trial (§ 146*)—Withdrawal of Juror —Discretion of Court.

Denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw a juror and for leave to apply to Special Term, to amend the answer, to set up matters not constituting a defense, is not an abuse of discretion.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. § 329; Dec. Dig. § 146.*]

Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.

Action by William T. Smith against Samuel Dixon. From a judgment for plaintiff, entered on a directed verdict, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE, and MILLER, JJ.

Horace L. Cheyney, of New York City, for appellant.

Edward P. Lyon, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs, 1907 to .date, & Rep’r Indexes.

MILLER, J.

[1] This is a suit upon five promissory notes, made by the defendant to his own order, indorsed by him, and before maturity delivered to the plaintiffs assignor. The notes were signed by the defendant in West' Virginia, and, with certain stock collateral, *1098were sent to Boston to be negotiated, for the purpose of paying the defendants subscriptions to the capital stock of a corporation of which he was president. The notes were made without interest, but the principal sum included an amount for interest equal to the amount of dividends then being paid on the preferred stock, pledged as security, which amounted to 8 */io per cent, on the sum required to pay the defendant’s subscriptions. It is claimed that, pursuant to certain provisions of the laws of West Virginia, which were put in evidence, the notes are void as to any excess of interest above 6 per cent. We do not deem it necessary to decide whether the agreement was one to pay interest in excess of 6 per cent., or whether the defendant failed to prove that the case was not within the exception of the statute, for the reason that we are of the opinion that the case is governed by the laws of Massachusetts. The note was negotiated in Boston, where the defendant procured it to be sent for the purpose of having it negotiated. The fact that he signed it in West Virginia is of no consequence.' It had its inception in Boston. Tilden v. Blair, 21 Wall. 241, 22 L. Ed. 632; Hooley v Talcott, 129 App. Div. 233, 113 N. Y. Supp. 820.

[2] It was not an abuse of discretion to deny the defendant’s motion to withdraw a juror and for leave to apply to Special Term to amend the answer, for the purpose of setting up matters which did not constitute a defense, even if there were no other reasons for denying the motion.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1676

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the disclosure 

to State and local law enforcement agencies of the identity of individuals 

claiming tax benefits through the improper use of Social Security numbers of other individuals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 18, 2005

Ms. HOOLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for the disclosure to State and local law enforcement 

agencies of the identity of individuals claiming tax benefits through the improper use of Social Security numbers 

of other individuals.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘ID Theft Loophole 

5 Closure Act’’. 
2

•HR 1676 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCE2 MENT AGENCIES OF IDENTITY OF INDIVID3 UALS CLAIMING TAX BENEFIT THROUGH IM4 PROPER USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUM5 BERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (m) of section 6103 of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to disclosure 

8 of taxpayer identity information) is amended by adding 

9 at the end the following new paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(8) INDIVIDUALS CLAIMING TAX BENEFIT

11 USING IMPROPER SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.—If 

12 any State or local law enforcement agency has rea13 sonable cause to believe, based upon information be14 lieved to be reliable, that an individual may have vio15 lated a law of such State by claiming a tax benefit 

16 on any income tax return under this title using a 

17 TIN of any person who is not such individual, such 

18 individual’s spouse, or a dependent (as defined in 

19 section 152) of such individual, the Secretary may 

20 (upon written request from the head of such agency) 

21 disclose the name, TIN, and mailing address of such 

22 individual to officers and employees of such agency 

23 exclusively for use in locating such individual.’’
3

•HR 1676 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

3 of this Act.

Æ
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 11068 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JONATHAN WALLACE GOMEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:19

- CR

- 16

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jonathan Wallace Gomez appeals the 264

- month sentence imposed following his convictions for carjacking and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. Gomez argues that the district court reversibly erred in applying the career offender enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § § 4B1.1 and 4B1.2 , to his sentence b ased on his Texas conviction for aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury . Gomez urges that the Texas

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 23, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-11068 Document: 00515463005 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2020No. 19

- 11068

2 aggravated assault statute is broader than generic aggravated assault and lacks force as an element. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, correctly asserting that the issue raised on appeal is foreclosed. See United States v. Guillen

- Alvarez , 489 F.3d 197, 200

– 01 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that a Texas aggravated assault conviction under T EXAS P ENAL C ODE § 22.02 is a crime of violence under the former U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2); see also United States v. Shepherd , 848 F.3d 425, 427

– 28 (5th Cir. 2017) (reaffirming the continued validity of Guillen

- Alvarez after Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), and specifically holding that a Texas aggravated assault conviction is a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § § 2K2.1 and 4B1.2) ; United States v. Gomez Gomez , 917 F.3d 332, 333

– 34 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 19, 2019) (No. 19

- 5325) (holding T exas aggravated assault qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) because it includes as an element the use of force). Gomez concedes that the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by our precedent, but he seeks to preserve it for fur ther review. Accordingly, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)

. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is therefore GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRM ED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. Case: 19-11068 Document: 00515463005 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2020
Steven Bernard JORDAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-8298.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of *Alleyne v. United States,* ---U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2151, --- L.Ed. ---- (2013).
<PAGE>


Exhibit 99.1   Officer's Certificate as to Compliance for the Washington Mutual
               MSC Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-MS15 dated as
               of March 22, 2002

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

         The undersigned officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.,
formerly PNC Mortgage Securities Corp., a Delaware corporation (the "Company")
hereby certifies on behalf of the Company and on his own behalf for purposes of
the Washington Mutual MSC Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-MS15,
as follows:

         1.    I am the duly appointed, qualified and acting Vice President of
               the Company.

         2.    Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the
               meanings ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing
               Agreement related to the above-referenced series of Certificates.

         3.    I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's
               Certificate on behalf of the Company.

         4.    A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
               preceding calendar year and performance under this Agreement has
               been made under my supervision.

         5.    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master
               Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement
               throughout such year.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 22, 2002.


                               By: /s/ Richie Moore
                                   ----------------------
                                   Richie Moore
                                   Vice President
#### PEOPLE ex rel. RICHARDS, Appellant, v. MOSS et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 11, 1898.)

Action-by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of Thomas S. Richards, against Frank Moss and others.

L. J. Grant, for appellant.

T. Farley, for respondents.

No opinion. Writ dismissed, with costs.