alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (logo) WELLS

      FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334

  |
|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

                Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

                1585 Broadway

                New York, New York 10036

                Attention: Stephen Holmes

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2011, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc ., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, , as Master Servicer and Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, NA, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, inc., as Trust Advisor, and Wells Frago Bank, National Association, as Custodian, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar and Authenticating Agent, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2011-C3 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of March 2015.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

 

 

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 84 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1079]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   PROTECT AMERICA'S DEFENSE WORKERS

                                 ______

                            HON. BOB FILNER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 18, 1995
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to urge this 
Congress to make a major reinvestment in communities hit hardest by the 
downsizing of America's defense industry.
  San Diego is home to a highly skilled and productive work force. A 
generation of these talented defense workers helped to establish 
California's dominance in the defense and aerospace industry.
  Now defense workers in communities like San Diego are watching their 
jobs disappear--not only because of relaxing world tensions--but also 
because our own Department of Defense is helping to subsidize their 
transfer to other cities.
  Last year, my district saw the relocation of Martin Marietta's Space 
Systems Division to Denver--with a net loss of 1,800 jobs for my 
community. But the worst part about this situation is that our own U.S. 
Air Force rewrote a contract and paid Martin Marietta a $30 million 
subsidy to help transfer these jobs out of San Diego and out of 
California.
  To make matters worse, just last month the Defense Department gave 
away another $31 million of taxpayer money to the top executives of 
Martin Marietta and Lockheed.
  What did our Defense Department give to those defense workers in San 
Diego that lost their jobs? Absolutely nothing.
  To correct this gross injustice, I recently introduced H.R. 702, the 
Displaced Workers Defense Act of 1995.
  My legislation is very simple: It would require that any cost savings 
realized by the Federal Government under a defense contract that causes 
job losses in communities be returned to that community--to help create 
new jobs and to retrain displaced defense workers so they can take 
advantage of these new job opportunities.
  We must stop this giveaway of taxpayer funds to wealthy corporations.
  We must use our scarce resources to help those defense workers that 
have worked so hard to make America great.
  Please join me in this effort to protect our defense workers from 
being left behind in our changing economy. Join me in supporting H.R. 
702, the Displaced Workers Defense Act of 1995.

                          ____________________
```
Document Headings

                    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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 26, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Smiley at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee will be held Tuesday, October 26, 2010, at 1 p.m. Central Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Ellen Smiley. For more information please contact Ms. Smiley at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: September 1, 2010.

Shawn F. Collins,

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. 2010-22569 Filed 9-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
[No. 18285-1-III.

Division Three.

April 13, 2000.]

#### Star L. Freeman, *Appellant,*v. Stanley R. Stanfield, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 81-5-00169-4, Philip M. Raekes, J., entered January 29, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, A.C.J., concurred in by Schultheis and Kato, JJ.
News United States Air Force
 Air Force announces FY22 Aviation BonusPublished April 6, 2022
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Eligible active-duty aviators have from April 11 until Aug. 31 to apply for the fiscal year 2022 aviation bonus, Air Force officials announced April 6.
“Airpower will always be in high demand, and our operational readiness hinges on retaining a force of skilled and experienced aviators,” said Air Force Chief of Staff **Gen. CQ Brown, Jr.**, “As we explore and employ a variety of tools to assist in the production, retention and absorption of aviators, these incentives are one element of ensuring we have the force to meet current and future mission requirements.”
This year’s AvB program builds upon previous years’ offers to decisively shape and retain the rated force by providing specific eligible pilots, RPA pilots, air battle managers and combat systems officers with monetary incentives in exchange for active-duty service commitments. This provides reliable personnel forecasts to continue executing the Air Force’s warfighting mission.
Significant changes to the FY22 program include eligibility of the 11R community, reinstatement of short-term contracts for all tiers, and continues lump sum options starting in the 5- and 8-year contract tiers.
The FY22 AvB program applies to lieutenant colonels and below. Also, these officers must be qualified for operational flying duty and entitled to, and receiving, monthly aviation incentive pay.
Depending on the aviator category and length of the AvB contract, incentives vary from $15,000 to $35,000 per year with some categories eligible to receive $100,000 or $200,000 payable up front with the remaining balance of their contract paid annually, spread out equally over the contract term.
Airmen applying for these bonus programs should expect to see payments within three weeks after final approval of their application and processing by the Defense Finance Accounting Service.
Complete eligibility requirements and application instructions will be available on the MyPers website at **MyPers** at the Officer Compensation link in the left-hand column when the application window opens April 11.FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



aviation bonus 



airpower 



operational readiness 



readiness 



mission requirements 



FY22AvB Program 



aviators 



11R 



MyPers 



application 



window 



FY22 aviation bonus 



CSAF 



Air Force Chief of Staff 



Gen. CQ Brown Jr.
EX-35.3
(logo) SPS SELECT
           Portfolio
           SERVICING, inc.


Agreement: See Schedule of Agreements

Dated:     See Attached Schedule


ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


In accordance with the applicable section in each of the Pooling and Servicing
Agreements specified:

i.  a review of the activities of the Servicer during the year ended December
    31, 2011 and of performance under this Agreement has been made under such
    officers' supervision; and
ii. to the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review, SPS, in its
    capacity as the Servicer, Special Servicer or Modification Oversight Agent
    has fulfilled all of its obligations and no default has occurred under this
    Agreement throughout such year.


February 14, 2012

/s/ Timothy J. O'Brien
Timothy J. O'Brien
President
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.


3815 South West Temple | Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 | telephone (801) 293-1881
| web www.spservicing.com


(page)


Schedule of Agreement

Assignment, Assumption and Recognition Agreement for the Sequoia Mortgage Trust
2011-2, among Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation (the "Assignor"),
Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. (the "Depositor"), Select Portfolio Servicing,
Inc., (the "Servicer"), DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (the "Servicing Rights
Purchaser") and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, servicing under the
Flow Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights Sale and Servicing Agreement Among Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer, DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., as Servicing
Rights Purchaser, and Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation, as Owner
9/27/2011
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 49 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 49

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the Purple Heart is a combat decoration awarded to members of the Armed 
        Forces who are wounded by an instrument of war wielded by the enemy and 
        posthumously to the next of kin in the name of members who are killed in 
        action or die of wounds received in action;
Whereas the Purple Heart was originally conceived as the Badge of Military Merit 
        by General George Washington on August 7, 1782;
Whereas 2007 marks the 225th anniversary of the Badge of Military Merit, the 
        predecessor of the Purple Heart Medal;
Whereas the practice of awarding the Purple Heart was revived in 1932, the 200th 
        anniversary of George Washington's birth, out of respect for his memory 
        and military achievements;
Whereas over 1.5 million Purple Heart Medals have been awarded to members of the 
        Armed Forces fighting in defense of freedom and democracy in the Civil 
        War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean 
        War, the Vietnam War, Somalia, Bosnia, Operation Desert Storm, Operation 
        Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and other expeditionary 
        conflicts;
Whereas the organization known as the Military Order of the Purple Heart was 
        formed on October 19, 1932, for the protection and mutual interest of 
        members of the Armed Forces who have received the Purple Heart; and
Whereas the Military Order of the Purple Heart is composed exclusively of 
        recipients of the Purple Heart: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) congratulates the Military Order of the Purple Heart on 
        its 75th anniversary as a national organization whose goals are 
        to preserve and sustain the honor of the Armed Forces;
            (2) commends all recipients of the Purple Heart for their 
        courage and sacrifice on behalf of the United States; and
            (3) encourages all Americans to take time to learn about 
        the Purple Heart and the honor, courage, and bravery it 
        symbolizes.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 49

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Recognizing the 75th anniversary of the Military Order of the Purple 
 Heart and commending recipients of the Purple Heart for their courage 
             and sacrifice on behalf of the United States.
```
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Amendment No. 1
to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (the “Report”) of Anpulo Food Development, Inc. (the “Company”) for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, I, Wenping Luo, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    | ANPULO FOOD DEVELOPMENT, INC.
|------------------- | -----------------------------
|                    |                              
|Dated: July 9, 2015 | By:                          
|                    |                              
|                    |                              
|                    |                              
|                    |
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6600** 

JOSE ANGEL HERRERA , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Margaret B. Seymour , Senior District Judge. ( 6:15

- cv - 00505

- MBS )

Submitted : October 1 8 , 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016

Before WILKINSON , KING , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jose Angel Herrera, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in t his circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jose Angel Herrera seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice o r judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district cour t denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Herrera has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Herrera’s motion for leave to file a supplemental informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate rials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6749-S6750]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the 
first and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

           By Mr. HATFIELD:
       S. 806. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
     provide grants to entities in rural areas that design and 
     implement innovative approaches to improve the availability 
     and quality of health care in such rural areas, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
       [[Page S6750]] S. 807. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 to provide that individuals who have attained 
     age 59 1/2 may contribute to individual retirement accounts 
     without regard to their compensation; to the Committee on 
     Finance.
           By Mr. BREAUX:
       S. 808. A bill to extend the deadline for the conversion of 
     the vessel M/V TWIN DRILL, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
           By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Helms, and Mr. 
             Bradley):
       S. 809. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to limit the 
     eligibility for treatment under the generalized system of 
     preferences in the case of countries that support 
     international acts of terrorism, and for other purposes; to 
     the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. Thurmond):
       S. 810. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
     remove from the Coastal Barrier Resources System a tract of 
     land in South Carolina that was added to the System without 
     notice to the county in which the tract is located, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
     

                          ____________________
```
[Cite as R.C. v. C.S., 2018-Ohio-308.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

R.C., : 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

v. : No. 17AP-152 

 (C.P.C. No. 14JU 7010) 

C.S., : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

R.C., : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

v. : No. 17AP-153 

 (C.P.C. No. 14JU 7010) 

C.S., : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellee, : 

(Minor Child, K.M.C., : 

 Appellant). : 

 

M E M O R A N D U M D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on January 25, 2018 

 

Roger Warner, for appellees R.C. and G.C. 

 

Steven E. Hillman, for appellant/mother C.S. 

Erik L. Smith, for minor child K.M.C. 

Christopher E. Heckert, Guardian ad Litem. 

 

ON APPLICATIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION 
Nos. 17AP-152 and 17AP-153 2 

TYACK, J. 

{¶ 1} Counsel for C.S., the mother of teenager K.M.C., has filed an application for 

reconsideration of our decision affirming the trial court's granting of limited visitation for 

K.M.C.'s paternal grandparents. An attorney purporting to be counsel for K.M.C. to some 

degree has also participated in the filing of a "separate" application for reconsideration on 

behalf of the child. 

{¶ 2} Both counsel repeatedly assert that the decision about whether or not the 

paternal grandparents have any access to the child is totally up to the mother. We do not 

see that as being so. Obviously, if the paternal grandparents and the mother were getting 

along there would be no need for a court action. The fact that a system to allow 

grandparents to have limited access to a young person when a parent objects is proof that 

a parent's preference does not end consideration of the issue. 

{¶ 3} The applications for reconsideration do not raise issues which were not 

carefully considered when we drafted and released our decision. The applications merely 

assert at length a belief that we reached the wrong result. We do not believe that either the 

trial court or this appellate court reached the wrong result. 

{¶ 4} Both applications for reconsideration are denied. 

Applications for reconsideration denied. 

BROWN, P.J., and LUPER SCHUSTER, J., concur.