alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Joachim Hensel, 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 BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2011-A (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.              I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing 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 parties: Citibank, N.A.




Dated: March 21, 2014




By:
/s/ Joachim HenselName:  Joachim Hensel

Title: Vice President – Finance & CFO

BMW Financial Services NA, LLC
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 20 2 3

- 1368 LT Case No. 20 1 9

- CF

- 024616

- A

_____________________________
T ERENCE W ILLIAM L AAKSO , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County

. John D. Watson , Judge

. Kepler B. Funk, Keith F. Szachacz, and Alan S. Diamond , of Funk, Szachacz & Diamond, LLC, Melbourne
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford , Jr. , Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee

.

July 30, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.

E DWARDS , C.J., and S OUD and B OATWRIGHT , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

  By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the 
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was 
granted to:
  (The following Members (at the request of Ms. DeLauro) to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Ms. DeLauro, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Gonzalez, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Underwood, for 5 minutes, today.
  Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Owens, for 5 minutes, today.

                          ____________________
```
[No. 44794-7-I.

Division One.

May 30, 2000.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Jimmy H. Vasquez, *Appellant,*and Sherry Darlene Vasquez, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-3-03122-1, Philip G. Hubbard, Jr., J., entered June 1, 1999. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
EX-34.4
(logo) plante moran

Plante & Moran, PLLC
Suite 2700
225 W. Washington St.
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: 312.899.4460
Fax: 312.726.3262
plantemoran.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Board of Directors
National Tax Search, LLC

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that National Tax Search, LLC
(the "Company") complied with certain servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the National
Tax Search TaxQ system (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December
31, 2011. The Company has determined that only certain servicing criteria
1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi),
1122(d)2(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) are applicable to the
activities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.
The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities
performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those 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 standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as
we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included
selection of a sample of transactions and compliance activities related to the
Platform during the examination period and determining whether the Company
processed those transactions and performed those activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria. Our testing of selected transactions and compliance
activities was limited to calculations, reports, and activities performed by
the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures did not
include determining whether errors may have occurred prior to our tests that
may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. 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 servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December. 31,
2011 for the Platform is fairly stated in all material respects.


/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC


Chicago,IL
January 16, 2012


(logo) Praxity
MEMBER
GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF
INDEPENDENT FIRMS
#### Whitaker *v.*Whitaker.

[No. 18,952.

Filed January 31, 1958.]

*Nat Youngblood*and *Youngblood & Lockyear,*both of Evansville, for appellant.

Cooper, J.

This is an appeal from proceedings by the appellant against the appellee by way of a petition to modify a divorce decree involving the custody of a six-year-old child of the parties.

After hearing evidence, a decree was rendered against the appellant awarding permanent custody of the child to the paternal grandparents of the child. The appellant thereafter filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and from the decree and judgment rendered by the trial court thereafter, this appeal is taken.

The appellee has not filed a brief in support of the judgment of the trial court. It is the law in Indiana that the neglect of the appellee to file a brief controverting the errors complained of by an appellant may be taken or deemed to be a confession of such *248error, or errors, and that the judgment may accordingly be reversed and the cause remanded without prejudice to either party. This rule was not declared in the interests of an appellant but for the protection of the court, in order to relieve it of the burden of controverting the arguments and contentions advanced for reversals where the duty properly rests upon counsel for the appellee. *Wilson*v. *Wilson*(1956), 126 Ind. App. 218, 131 N. E. 2d 658; *Meadows*v. *Hickman*(1947), 225 Ind. 146, 73 N. E. 2d 343; *Milto*v. *Richardson*(1956), 126 Ind. App. 148, 131 N. E. 2d 151, and authorities cited.

It has also been said by our Supreme Court in the case of *Roth*v. *Vandalia R. Co.*(1919), 187 Ind. 302, 119 N. E. 1, that:

> “Another cogent reason for invoking this rule is that the time of the court should be devoted to cases that are properly briefed. Litigants who are making a good-faith effort to help the court should not be delayed while this court attempts to perform the duties of the counsel.”

See also *Deatrick*v. *Lawless*(1923), 193 Ind. 327, 139 N. E. 587; *City of Shelbyville*v. *Adams*(1916), 185 Ind. 326, 114 N. E. 1; *Brown*v. *State*(1915), 184 Ind. 254, 108 N. E. 861, 111 N. E. 8; *Burroughs*v. *Burroughs*(1913), 180 Ind. 380, 103 N. E. 1.

The rule will not be invoked unless the appellant’s brief makes an apparent or *prima facie*showing of reversible error. *Pittsburg, etc. R. Co.*v. *Linder*(1925), 195 Ind. 569, 145 N. E. 885; *Bryant*v. *School Town of Oakland City*(1930), 202 Ind. 254, 171 N. E. 378, 173 N. E. 268; *Reed, Admr.*v. *Brown*(1939), 215 Ind. 417, 19 N. E. 2d 1015. In our opinion, an examination of appellant’s brief exhibits the presence of errors in the judgment and the proceedings leading thereto of such *249substance as to warrant a reversal of the judgment and a remand of the cause for further proceeding.

Judgment reversed without prejudice.

Note. — Reported in 147 N. E. 2d 596.
Exhibit 10.3
Summary of Terms of Stock Option Awards Granted to Executive Officers
     IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) grants stock option awards to itsexecutive officers under the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan and the 2002 IncentivePlan, as amended and restated. The Company, however, does not enter intoformal award agreements with such executive officers. The following is asummary of the standard terms of the stock awards granted to IndyMac Bancorp,Inc. executive officers. The awards also are subject to the provisions of eachexecutive officer’s employment agreement, and such agreements have been filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission to the extent required by theSecurities and Exchange Commission’s rules and regulations.
 1. Term of Options and Limitations on the Right to Exercise. The termof the options will be for a period of ten (10) years. To the extentnot previously exercised, the options will lapse prior to the 10-yearexpiration date upon the earliest to occur of the followingcircumstances:
 (a) Three months after the executive officer’stermination of employment for any reason other than death,disability, retirement or cause.  (b) Twelve months after the executive officer’stermination of employment by reason of disability or if theexecutive officer incurs a disability within three months afterthe date of termination in accordance with subsection (a).  (c) Twelve months after the executive officer’stermination of employment by reason of death or if the executiveofficer’s death occurs within three months after the date oftermination in accordance with subsection (a).  (d) Twelve months after the executive officer’stermination of employment by reason of his or her retirement.  (e) Immediately upon the executive officer’s terminationof employment for cause.
 2. Vesting and Acceleration of Vesting. The options vest annuallyover three (3) years. Five executive officers hold options with afive-year vesting schedule, and the Management Development andCompensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors reserves theright to grant future options with a three- to five-year vestingschedule.
     Notwithstanding the foregoing vesting schedule, upon theexecutive officer’s termination of employment with the Company byreason of his or her retirement, all options will become fully vestedand exercisable. Upon the occurrence of a change in control, alloptions granted under the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan will immediatelybecome fully vested and exercisable. Upon the occurrence of a changein control, all options granted under the 2002 Incentive Plan, asamended and restated, will become fully vested and exercisable on theearliest to occur of the following: (i) the first anniversary of thedate of the change in control, or (ii) the executive officer’stermination of employment by reason of his or her death ordisability, without cause or for good reason.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 440 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 440

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 29 (legislative day, September 17), 2008

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives 
         and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on any legislative day from Monday, 
September 29, 2008, through Friday, October 3, 2008, on a motion 
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 
or his designee, it stand adjourned until 11 a.m. on Saturday, January 
3, 2009, or until the time of any reassembly

              

 pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from 
Monday, September 29, 2008, through Wednesday, December 31, 2008, on a 
motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 
Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 11 a.m. on 
Saturday, January 3, 2009, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant 
to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority 
Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and the 
Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place and time as they may 
designate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 29, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing  Agreement  dated as of August 1,2011, by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, MidlandLoan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as a PooledSpecial Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Providence PlaceMall Loan Special Servicer, U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agentand Custodian, and Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor,with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series DBUBS2011-LC3 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
CA-EX10.2_2014.09.30-Q2


Exhibit 10.2


CA, Inc. Change in Control Severance Policy
(Amended and Restated as of January 21, 2014)


(Schedules as of July 30, 2014)




Schedule A
(2.99 Multiple)


Chief Executive Officer (Michael P. Gregoire)*
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Richard J. Beckert)*
Executive Vice President and Group Executive, Worldwide Sales and Services (Adam Elster)*
Executive Vice President, Enterprise Solutions and Technology Group (Amit Chatterjee)*


[Employees may be added or eliminated from time to time]


Schedule B
(2.00 Multiple)


Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer (Lauren P. Flaherty)*


[Employees may be added or eliminated from time to time]


Schedule C
(1.00 Multiple)


Executive Vice President, Strategy and Corporate Development (Jacob Lamm) 


[Employees may be added or eliminated from time to time]


        


*Denotes participants not eligible for the excise tax-gross-up pursuant to section 4(g) of the Policy.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


EXCHANGE
      ACT RULE 15D-14(B) AND


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the quarterly Report of Legacy Holdings, Inc. FKA CST
      Entertainment, Inc. (the ”Company”) on Form 10QSB for the period ending December
      31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Matthews, Chief Executive Officer and Principle
      Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge,
      pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:





|(i) | The
              Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
              of
              the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.




Dated:
      August 21, 2008





/S/
                Robert MatthewsName:
                Robert MatthewsTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer and Principle Accounting
                Officer
#### STATE of Arkansas *v.*Robert A. ROBBINS; Bobbye Jeanne Robbins, Next Friend and Intervenor

CR 98-1394

9 S.W.3d 500

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered January 27, 2000

*Mark Pryor,*Att’y Gen., by: *David R. Raupp,*Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellant.

No response.

*Jeff Rosenzweig,*for next friend and intervenor.

PER CURIAM.

On December 2, 1999, we issued a writ of *certiorari*for the record in this case so that a review for prejudicial errors could be conducted. *See State v. Robbins,*339 Ark. 379, 5 S.W.3d 51 (1999) *(Robbins).*Following the issuance of the *256writ, we received numerous motions filed by the State as well as a number of motions filed by Mr. Rosenzweig on behalf of Bobbye Jeanne Robbins.

First, we note that the State incurred no new responsibilities pursuant to our opinion in *Robbins,*but continues to have the responsibilities previously articulated by court rules. Specifically, as we stated in *Robbins,*the Attorney General s office will continue to be responsible for certifying to us that all objections have been abstracted and will retain the duty of briefing any other points that appear to involve prejudicial errors. *See*Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3 (h).

 Next, we note that it was the intent of this court that the counsel appointed pursuant to our decision in *Robbins*would not serve as a representative of a party but rather would assist the court in its review. Because of Mr. Rosenzweig’s representation of Bobbye Jean Robbins, a conflict of interest exists and that conflict prevents Mr. Rosenzweig’s appointment to perform the mandatory review duties set out in *Robbins.*Accordingly, we relieve Mr. Rosenzweig and hereby appoint Ms. Lea Ellen Fowler to perform the duties outlined in *Robbins*to assist this court in its review of the record. Specifically, appointed counsel shall abstract the record and assist the court in its determination (1) whether any errors raised in the trial court are prejudicial to the defendant, in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §16-91-113(a) (1987) and Ark. S. Ct. R. 4-3 (h); (2) whether any plain errors covered by the exceptions outlined in *Wicks v. State,*270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980) have occurred; and (3) whether other fundamental safeguards were followed. *See Robbins, supra.*

Finally, noting that the court reporter has assured the parties that the record will be available in February 29, 2000, we stay the briefing time of this case until the record is filed with this court and the clerk has established a briefing schedule.

Motion to stay briefing schedule granted and counsel appointed.