alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-34.5
(logo) Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Suite 3300
1100 Walnut Street
Kansas City, MO 64106-2129
USA

Tel:+1 816 474 6180
www.deloitte.com

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, Inc., (the "Company"), an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for its role in servicing Commercial Mortgage Backed
Securities Transactions (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December
31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)((B), (C) and
(D)), 1122(d)3(ii) through 3(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has
determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with
respect to the Platform. Management's assertion identifies the transactions
defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible
for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is
to express an opinion on management's assertion 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, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing
criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to
selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered
by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing
activities related to each specific asset-backed transaction included in the
Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance
arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above
that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the
Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for 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 applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31,2007, for its role in servicing Commercial Mortgage Backed
Securities Transactions is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Kansas City, MO
February 18, 2008



Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          28,844
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          26,947
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                13,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    147,950
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,115
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,130
<LOANS>                                        705,857
<ALLOWANCE>                                     12,317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 937,479
<DEPOSITS>                                     755,888
<SHORT-TERM>                                    62,725
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,044
<LONG-TERM>                                     42,922
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,646
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 937,479
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 28,332
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,842
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   305
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                32,479
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,943
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,500
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,979
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,288
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               4,127
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 14,567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,001
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      12,001
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,849
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.35
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,267
<LOANS-PAST>                                       169
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   190
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,488
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                11,172
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      638
<RECOVERIES>                                       495
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               12,317
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,696
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,621
<FN>
CERTAIN PREVIOUSLY REPORTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT AMOUNTS HAVE
BEEN RECLASSIFIED TO CONFORM TO THE 2000 PRESENTATION


</TABLE>
Order entered September 16, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00242-CR

WILLIAM WAYNE LAUBE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-81056-2012

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 31

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a
                      14(a)/15D-14(a) and SECTION
                     302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Joey DiFrancesco, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal
executive officer) and principal financial officer of Raven Moon
Entertainment, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the
Registrant;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant
and we have:
	a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report
is being prepared;
	b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
	c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):
	a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and
	b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls.

Dated: August 14, 2007		/s/ Joseph DiFrancesco
				----------------------
				Joey DiFrancesco, President,
				Chief Executive Officer and
				Principal Financial Officer
ex4_1.htm


Exhibit 4.1

[FACE OF CERTIFICATE]





Number

No. NY





Shares





APCO OIL AND GAS INTERNATIONAL INC.

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

Ordinary Shares of U.S. $0.01 par value each





THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT





is the registered holder of





CUSIP G0471F 10 9





shares in the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof. This certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.

Given under the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.





Dated:





SECRETARY





CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

(NEW YORK)

TRANSFER AGENT

AND REGISTRAR,

BY

AUTHORIZED OFFICER

 





  



  







  



 



 

[REVERSE OF CERTIFICATE]





FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ______________hereby sell, assign and transfer unto





Shares of the issued Share Capital represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint





Attorney to transfer the said shares on the books of the within-named Company with full power of substitution in the premises.





Dated:__________________, 20_____________





In Presence of





NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond

with the name as written upon the face of the certificate in

every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any

change whatever.
EXHIBIT 32
                                   ----------

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE & FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Intercell
International  Corporation  for  the  quarter  ended  June  30, 2003, I, Paul H.
Metzinger,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chief Financial Officer of Intercell
International Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to my
knowledge,  that:

     (1)  such  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB  of  Intercell International
          Corporation  for  the quarter ended June 30, 2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
          Intercell  International  Corporation  for  the quarter ended June 30,
          2003,  fairly  presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Intercell  International
          Corporation.



                                /s/ Paul  H.  Metzinger
                                --------------------------
                                Paul H. Metzinger, Chief
                                Executive Officer & Chief
                                Financial Officer

Date:    August 18, 2003



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


<PAGE>
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. THE NORTH CAROLINA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Guardian for KINNIS BLAKENEY and JAMES BLAKENEY, v. L. L. PARKER, Guardian, et al.

(Filed 25 January, 1933.)

Guardian and Ward B a — Court originally appointing guardian lias jurisdiction to appoint his successor.

The court originally appointing a guardian ordinarily has jurisdiction to appoint his successor though the residence of the ward may have been changed in the meantime, and this is especially true where suit against the original guardian is necessary to obtain a settlement.

Appeal by defendants from *Oglesby, J.,*at October Term, 1932, of UnioN.

Oivil action for settlement and to recover on guardian bond.

The essential facts are these:

1. On 8 May, 1924, L. L. Parker was duly appointed guardian of the estates of James Blakeney and Kinnis Blakeney, minors six and eight years of age respectively who were at that time residing with their mother in Union County.

2. The Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland became surety on the bonds of said guardian.

*553. In November, 1930, the said minors, with their mother, moved across the line into Chesterfield County, S. C., where they have since lived.

4. In the fall of 1931, the said L. L. Parker resigned his guardianship of the estates of said minors, after being ordered to file his accounts, and the clerk of the Superior Court of Union County appointed the North Carolina Bank and Trust Company guardian in his stead.

This suit is to recover on the bonds of the first guardian, the amount being agreed upon, if the second appointment be valid.

From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal, assigning error.

*John G. Sikes for plaintiff.*

*Vann & Milliken for defendant, L. L. Parker.*

*Tillett, Tillett & Kennedy for defendant, Fidelity and Deposit Go.*

Stagy, C. J.

The rule, generally accordant with the decisions, is that, jurisdiction to appoint a successor to a guardian ordinarily resides with the court making the original appointment, though the residence of the ward may have been changed in the meantime. 28 O. J., 1109. Especially is this so, where, as here, suit against the original guardian and his surety is necessary to obtain a settlement. 15 A. & E. Enc. of Law, 35 and 120.

Nor are our own decisions contrariwise. *Credle v. Baugham,*152 N. C., 18, 67 S. E., 46.

Affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 2026
In re: JAMAR MARVIN SIMMONS, a/k/a Mar , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 1:13

- cr - 00061

- GLR

- 1 ; 1:14

- cv - 03911

- GLR )

Submitted : December 14, 2022 Decided: January 13, 2023

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jamar Marvin Simmons , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2026 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/13/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Jamar Marvin Simmons petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C

. § 2255 motion

. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court dismissed Simmons’ motion for lack of jurisdiction on December 13, 2022.
B ecause the distri ct court has recently decided Simmons’ case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisiona l process.
PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 22-2026 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/13/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 07, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 07, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A25I0039. ARHC PPLVLGA01, LLC et al v. CHARLES BUSBEE et al.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

21C05820
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on April 12, 2010, Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals Inc., 2820 N. Normandy Drive, Petersburg, Virginia 23805-9372, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug
ScheduleAmphetamine (1100)
IILisdexamfetamine (1205)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMethadone Intermediate (9254)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers for formulation into finished pharmaceuticals. Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than August 9, 2010. Dated: May 28, 2010. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2010-13752 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
The HONORABLE EDWARD L. FILIPPINE, United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-3954

___________

Alonzo Bouie, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

Trudy Huskamp Peterson, * Eastern District of Missouri.

Archivist of the United States *

of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 7, 1996

 Filed: November 22, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alonzo Bouie, a black employee of the National Archives and Records

Administration, filed this employment discrimination action claiming that

he was unlawfully denied two promotion opportunities. Following a bench

trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of defendant, and we 1

affirm.

We review a district court's factual findings for clear error and

accept the court's account of the evidence if it is plausible in light of

the entire record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Herring-Marathon Master

Partnership B v. Boardwalk Fries, 979 F.2d 1326, 1329 (8th Cir. 1992).

Where a case has been tried on the merits
-2-

and the trier-of-fact has heard the evidence, we need not concern ourselves

with the order of proof and presumptions; rather, we review here the

"`ultimate factual issue' of whether [defendant] discriminated against

[Bouie] on the basis of his race[, his age, his sex, or reprisal]." See

Tuttle v. Henry J. Kaiser Co., 921 F.2d 183, 186 (8th Cir. 1990) (quoted

citations omitted). The district court's determination that Bouie did not

prove intentional discrimination is a question of fact, subject to review

for clear error. See Beith v. Nitrogen Prods., Inc., 7 F.3d 701, 703 (8th

Cir. 1993) (per curiam).

We hold that the district court did not clearly err in finding that

Bouie failed to prove intentional discrimination. The record supports the

court's findings that the employees chosen for the respective promotions

received better supervisory appraisals than Bouie did; that the selecting

officials believed Bouie's communication and supervisory skills were

inferior to those of the chosen employees; and that Bouie's documentary

evidence proved only that he was very good at the technical aspects of his

job, and did not negate defendant's assertions that Bouie lacked the

managerial skills deemed important for the promotions. We also conclude

the district court did not clearly err in finding Bouie did not make a

prima facie showing of retaliation as to the second promotion decision.

Cf. Nelson v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 75 F.3d 343, 346 (8th Cir.) ("mere

coincidence of timing" failed to establish submissible case of retaliation,

where there was no evidence that others who filed charges were fired or

that supervisors discussed filing with each other or with plaintiff), cert.

denied, 65 U.S.L.W. 3239 (U.S. Oct. 7, 1996) (No. 95-1878).

We do not consider Bouie's remaining arguments raised for the first

time on appeal. See United States v. Dixon, 51 F.3d 1376, 1383 (8th Cir.

1995). Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.