alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-35 (h)


[LOGO] WELLS FARGO


Commercial Mortgage Servicing
MAC A0357-030
P.O. Box 4036, Concord Ca 94524
1320 Willow Pass Rd., Suite 300
Concord, CA 94520
800-986-9711


ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

RE: Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2006-TOP21


In accordance with Section 13.11 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, (the
"Agreement") dated January 1, 2006 executed by and between Morgan Stanley
Capital I, Inc., (as "Depositor"), Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, (as
"Master Servicer"), ARCap Servicing, Inc., (as "Special Servicer"), LaSalle Bank
National Association, (as "Trustee"), Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
(as "Paying Agent" and "Certificate Registrar"), as authorized officer of the
Master Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, I certify that (A) a
review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding calendar
year or portion thereof and of the performance of the Master Servicer under this
Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision and (B) to the best of
such officer's knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects
throughout such year or portion thereof.



Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
"Master Servicer"



/s/ Kathryn O'Neal
Kathryn O'Neal
Head of Commercial Mortgage Servicing
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
#### Vulcanite Paving Company *v.*City of Philadelphia, Appellant.

*Appeals*— Reversal *of judgment for defendant n. o. v.*— Entry *of judgment on verdict*— Subsequent *appeal.*

Where upon the entry of judgment for defendant n. o. v. in the lower court, an appeal is taken to the Supreme Court, and the judgment reversed after consideration of the whole case, with directions to the lower court to enter judgment on the verdict, and an appeal is taken from the judgment so entered, alleging errors in the trial, but giving rise to no .debatable question not considered on the first appeal the judgment will be affirmed.

Argued Jan. 6, 1914.

Appeal, No. 145, Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1911, No. 409, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Vulcanite Paving Company v. City of Philadelphia.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed^

Assumpsit by a contractor to recover the amount of certain uncollectible assessment bills received under a paving contract with defendant city. Before Audenried, J.

The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court and in Vulcanite Paving Co. v. Philadelphia, 239 Pa. 524. At the trial a verdict was rendered for plaintiff for |2,242.53. Subsequently the court entered judgment for defendant n. o. v., which judgment on appeal to the Supreme Court was reversed with a direction to the court below to enter judgment on the verdict. From the judgment so entered defendant appealed.

*81
      *Errors assigned*were in the admission of certain evidence and in refusing to enter judgment for defendant.

*Paul Reilly,*Assistant City Solicitor, with him *Thomas Boylan,*Assistant City Solicitor, and *Michael J. Ryan,*City Solicitor, for appellant.

*Walter Biddle Saul,*with him *E. 0. Michener,*for appellee.

February 9, 1914:

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff obtained a verdict in an action upon a contract for street paving. It was provided by the contract that payment for the work should be made by the delivery of assessment bills against the adjoining properties except where paving was done at the intersection of cross streets and in front of unassessable property for which the defendant was to pay in warrants. Judgment was entered for the defendant in the Common Pleas non obstante veredicto. That judgment was reversed by this court and it was directed that judgment should be entered for the plaintiff on the verdict. See Vulcanite Paving Co. v. Philadelphia, 239 Pa. 524.

This appeal was taken by the defendant after the entry of judgment in the Common Pleas. The assignments relate to the admission in evidence of the contract; to the submission to the jury on insufficient evidence of the question whether assessment bills delivered to the plaintiff were against property not liable to assessment; to the refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant and to the entry of judgment for the plaintiff in pursuance of the direction of this court. They give rise to no debatable question that was not considered and decided on the first appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.8a

(PLAZA REALTY & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. LOGO)

THE HAMMONS TOWER
901 St. Louis Street, Suite 106
Springfield, Missouri 65806
(417)864-4544
Fax (417)864-4596

December 8, 2004

Mr. John Q. Hammons
John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc.
300 John Q. Hammons Parkway, Suite #900
Springfield, MO 65806

RE: LEASE RENEWAL - SUITE 900, JOHN Q. HAMMONS BUILDING

Dear Mr. Hammons,

Please allow this letter to serve as the Lessor's proposal to extend your Lease
Agreement relating to your Leased Premises within the John Q. Hammons Building,
Springfield, Missouri.

As of January, 1, 2005, the Lessor will extend your Lease for an additional one
(1) year period under the same terms and conditions as outlined in your Lease
dated December 16, 1998 and renewal dated December 18, 2001 with exception to
base rental which shall be increased to $8,100.00 per month. We will also adjust
your base year as it relates to increased building costs to the actual cost for
2004.

Should this meet with your approval, please sign all three (3) copies of this
letter and return them to my attention. Upon receiving the Lessor's approval and
signature, I will return one (1) fully executed copy for your files.

Sincerely,

PLAZA REALTY & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.


/s/ Mark Harrell
------------------------
Mark Harrell
President


LESSOR:
ACCEPTED BY: /s/ John Q. Hammons             DATE: 12-13-04
             -----------------------------
                 Mr. John Q. Hammons


LESSEE:
ACCEPTED BY: /s/ John Q. Hammons             DATE: 12-13-04
             -----------------------------
                 Mr. John Q. Hammons
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6264 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6264

To make the assault of a law enforcement officer a deportable offense, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2021

  Mr. Garbarino (for himself, Mr. Budd, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. 
 Jacobs of New York, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mrs. Hinson, Mr. Van Drew, Mr. 
Weber of Texas, Mrs. Cammack, Mr. Gimenez, Ms. Malliotakis, Mr. Bishop 
of North Carolina, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Guest, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Katko, and 
 Mr. Zeldin) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make the assault of a law enforcement officer a deportable offense, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Our Law enforcement with 
Immigration Control and Enforcement Act of 2021'' or the ``POLICE Act 
of 2021''.

SEC. 2. ASSAULT OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

    Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1227(a)(2)) is amended--
                    ``(G) Assault of law enforcement officers.--Any 
                alien who assaults a law enforcement officer is 
                deportable.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger Lee HARRELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-6634.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 31, 2003.

Decided Aug. 12, 2003.

Roger Lee Harrell, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, James Brien Comey, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Roger Lee Harrell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of a previous order denying his motion to stay a state court proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Harrell,*No. CR-01-112 (E.D.Va. Apr. 8, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### CROSS v. MOOG.

No. 14892.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 11, 1934.

Wm. H. Talbot, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Johnston Armstrong, of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, Judge.

Joseph Cross rented a three-room apartment from Joseph Moog. Cross’ son, fourteen years old, was injured when plaster fell from the ceiling of one of the rooms, striking him on the head and shoulder. The boy was taken to -the Charity Hospital where he received first aid treatment. He returned to his home the next day. Cross brings this suit against Moog claiming on his own behalf $18 *303as the amount of the doctor’s hill which he will be required to pay, and claiming on behalf of his minor son $282 to compensate him for his suffering.

In the court helow there was judgment in favor of plaintiff on his own behalf for $18 and for the use and benefit of his son for $82. Defendant has appealed, and plaintiff has answered the appeal asking that the amount awarded for the use of his son be increased.

There is no controversy over the question of liability.

While it appears that the injuries to the boy were not at all serious, nevertheless, he was confined to his bed for a short period and we cannot say that the amount awarded him, $82, is excessive. On the other hand the judge of the trial court saw the boy and heard the witnesses, and we therefore feel that his estimate as to the damage sustained cannot be said to be manifestly inadequate.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN P & F INDUSTRIES, INC.'S
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,571,037
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,455,957
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 19,236,239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,585,524
<PP&E>                                      17,382,575
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,387,035
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,010,328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,184,993
<BONDS>                                      9,904,126
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,249,345
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,180,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,010,328
<SALES>                                     17,876,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,108,268
<CGS>                                       12,546,061
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,546,061
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             288,305
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,552,407
<INCOME-TAX>                                   591,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            961,407
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   961,407
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
STRATS Trust For Allstate Corporation Securities, Series 2006-3 10-K

Exhibit
31.1



CERTIFICATION



I,
Barbara Garafalo, certify that:



1.       I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
report on Form 10-K of STRATS Trust For Allstate Corporation Securities, Series 2006-3 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);



2.       Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;



4.       Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all
material respects; and



5.       All
of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports
on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance
with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except
as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
this report on Form 10-K.



In
giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The
Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.





|Dated: March 30, 2022 | By: | /s/ Barbara Garafalo                                     
|--------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                      |     | Barbara Garafalo                                         
|                      |     | President                                                
|                      |     | (senior officer of depositor in charge of securitization)
DERRICK ANTONIO BROWN

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 3468

__ ___________________________/

Opinion filed July 3, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Adrian G. Soud , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Zachary F. Lawton, Assistant Public

Defender , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Ja y Kubica and Samuel Steinberg, Assistant Attorneys General , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE

, SWANSON

, and MAKAR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
215 So.2d 458

#### Willie James SYKES v. N. L. HALE, Warden.

3 Div. 338.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. *7,*1968.

Willie James Sykes, pro se.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMPSON, Justice.

This is an appeal- from a judgment dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State’s motion to dismiss might properly have been granted on any 'one or more of several grounds. There was no compliance with the statutory requirements that the petition be verified and that a copy of the judgment or process under which petitioner is detained be annexed to the petition. No evidence was offered to support the claimed denial of due process or equal protection of the law. It is on the face of it a substitute for an appeal.

It is stated in the petition that petitioner was charged with burglary and in 1958 tried before a jury, by whom he was found guilty of first degree burglary and sentenced to life imprisonment. No appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction. The only allegations suggesting infraction of any substantial right are that there was an extended delay between his indictment and trial, and that his court-appointed counsel was less diligent and attentive than appellant now thinks he might have been. It is charged that said counsel was derelict in failure to take an appeal from the judgment of conviction. These charges involve questions of fact. The prayer seeks an order to the warden of the prison commanding him to do and perform what, in justice, he should do with respect to petitioner’s right of release. From the petition as a whole it is obvious that appellant seeks a review of the proceedings on the trial by way of appeal. It is the settled rule that habeas corpus cannot be made the substitute for appeal or writ of error. Cooper v. Wiman, 273 Ala. 699, 145 So.2d 216; Hable v. State, 41 Ala.App. 398, 132 So.2d 271; Warden v. State, 41 Ala.App. 449, 134 So.2d 783. While in some cases it has been held that where a remedy is not available by habeas corpus, one who charges incarceration by unlawful means, may find relief by resort to the common law remedy of coram nobis. This is not one of those cases. Appellant previously applied for coram no-bis to the Circuit Court-of Morgan County. The writ was denied, but petitioner did not appeal.

On the face of the matter appellant, though not denying his guilt, has pursued •every known method to gain his freedom.

*245We find no reason why the judgment ■of dismissal should not be sustained.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and COLEMAN and KOHN, JJ., concur.
## NUMBER 13 - 2 1 - 00 391 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JASON OMAR MORENO , A ppellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________ On a ppeal from the 9 2nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Tijerina, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva This cause is before the Court on Appellant’s Motion for New Appeal and Motion for Appointment of Counsel. We previously reviewed and affirmed the convictions which appellant is attempting to appeal

. See Moreno v. State , 987 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg 1999, pet. ref’d).2 On November 12 , 202 1 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared the appeal was not timely perfected in this matter . Appellant was further informed the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court ’ s directive

. In response, appellant filed a motion for new appeal which does not cure the defect , as the notice of appeal is more than twenty years late

. This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed notice of appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. C rim. App. 1996). Absent a timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal in a criminal case and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Slaton v. Stat e , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Appellant may be entitled to an out

- of

- time appeal by filing a post

- conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the ju risdiction of this Court. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 11.07, § 3(a); see also Ex parte Garcia , 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Accordingly, appellant’s motion for a new appeal and motion for appointment of counsel are dismissed for want of j urisdiction , and this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

. CLARISSA SILVA Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed on the 3rd day of February , 202 2

.
|EXHIBIT 12.2                                     
|-------------------------------------------------
|SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY                  
|COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
|(Dollars in millions)                            
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|Fixed Charges:                                   
|                                                 
|Interest                                         
|                                                 
|Interest portion of annual rentals               
|                                                 
|                                                 
|Total fixed charges for purpose of ratio         
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|Earnings:                                        
|                                                 
|Pretax income from continuing operations         
|                                                 
|Add: total fixed charges (from above)            
|                                                 
|                                                 
|Total earnings for purpose of ratio              
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges               
|                                                 
|                                                 
|                                                 
|