alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 33.7



LOGO

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONS REGULATION AB SERVICING
CRITERIA

For the calendar year ending December 31, 2012, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for Wells Fargo Bank,N.A. (the Servicer).

National Tax Search, LLC (NTS) is responsible for assessing compliance as of
December 31, 2012 and for the period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the
CFR). NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Only servicing criteria 1122 (d) (l)(ii), 1122 (d)l(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) (the Applicable Servicing Criteria) are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS has determined that the
remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all
tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTSs TaxQ system (the Platform Transactions).

NTS, as a vendor, has
assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2012 and for the Reporting
Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting
firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2012 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to Servicer



|                 
|-----------------
|/s/ Lori D. Eshoo
|President/CEO    



|                                                                                                      |  |     
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----
|303 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1040
Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone:
(312) 233-6440 Facsimile: (312) 540-3770 |  | LOGO
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Texas Health and Human Services F/K/A 

Texas Department of Aging and Disability 

Services A/K/A El Paso State Supported 

Living Center,

 

 Appellant,

v.

Martha Garcia.,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00080-CV

Appeal from the

448th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2018DCV3036)

O R D E R

Appellant has filed an agreed motion for abatement. The Court finds good cause to grant 

this abatement. Therefore, we ORDER this appeal to be abated until August 18, 2022. The 

appellate timetable will be suspended during the abatement. The parties are directed to notify the 

Court whether the dispute has been resolved and to file the motion necessary to dispose of the 

appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(1), (2). If the parties are unsuccessful in resolving the appeal 

by agreement, the appeal will be reinstated and the record will be due 20 days from the date of 

the reinstatement order.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of May, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1013 

To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to prohibit the approval 

or continuation of section 1115 waivers insofar as they provide coverage 

of nonpregnant adults under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2007 

Mr. BURGESS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

the approval or continuation of section 1115 waivers 

insofar as they provide coverage of nonpregnant adults 

under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(SCHIP). 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF SECTION 1115 WAIVERS FOR 

4 COVERAGE OF NONPREGNANT ADULTS 

5 UNDER SCHIP. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2107(f) of the Social Se7 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1397gg) is amended, as added by 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1013 IH

1 section 6102(a) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 

2 (Public law 109–171) is amended— 

3 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘childless’’; 

4 and 

5 (2) by striking the second sentence. 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 

7 2105(c)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 1397ee(c)(1)) is amended— 

9 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘childless’’; 

10 and 

11 (2) by striking the second sentence. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

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

14 of this Act. 

15 (d) TERMINATION OF FUNDING OF COVERAGE

16 UNDER CURRENT WAIVERS.—In the case of any waiver, 

17 experimental, pilot, or demonstration project that would 

18 allow funds made available under title XXI of the Social 

19 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.) to be used to pro20 vide child health assistance or other health benefits cov21 erage to an adult (other than pregnant adult) that is ap22 proved as of the date of the enactment of this Act, on 

23 and after such date the Secretary of Health and Human 

24 Services shall not extend or renew such a waiver or project 

25 in a manner that permits funds under the waiver or 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1013 IH

1 project to be used for such purpose and shall otherwise 

2 take such action as is necessary to prevent the use of 

3 funds under the waiver or project to be used for such pur4 pose on and after January 1, 2008. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
# DEC 08  0914AM

CDR420

Line-In Record

Other

1019.12054
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                          1,282,906
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,616,932
<ALLOWANCES>                    131,235
<INVENTORY>                     433,597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                3,735,822
<PP&E>                          282,687
<DEPRECIATION>                  28,146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  5,107,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           56,334
<BONDS>                         5,974,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        1,000
<OTHER-SE>                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    5,107,540
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                416,439
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                707,313
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              481,383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (772,257)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (772,257)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (772,257)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (772)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (772)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES
OF REGISTRANT



The following is a list of subsidiaries
of the company as of October 31, 2016, omitting subsidiaries which, considered in the aggregate, would not constitute a significant
subsidiary.



|                                   |  |                    |                                     
|---------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ------------------------------------
|Name                               |  | Where Incorporated | Status                              
|                                   | 
|                                   |  |                   
|Brown Technical Media Corp.        |  | United States      | Wholly owned                        
|Pink Professionals, LLC            |  | United States      | Owned by Brown Technical Media Corp.
|Brown Book Shop, Inc.              |  | United States      | Owned by Brown Technical Media Corp.
|Brown Technical Publications, Inc. |  | United States      | Owned by Brown Technical Media Corp.
#### H. B. Carpenter v. Knapp, Stout & Co

(No. 1652, Op. Book No. 2, p, 372.)

Error from Limestone County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1111. *Judgment by default; when not supported by allegations.*Defendants in error sued plaintiff in error and one E. L. Carpenter. Their cause of action against E. L. Carpenter was an indebtedness by account of $3S8.80. Their cause of action against appellant was alleged to be that E. L. Carpenter had assigned to him a *625stock of goods, wares and merchandise for the fraudulent purpose of hindering, delaying and defeating the creditors of said E. L. Carpenter. The petition prayed judgment against E. L. Carpenter for the debt, and prayed that the alleged fraudulent transfer to plaintiff in error be set aside, etc. Defendants did not answer, and judgment by default was rendered against them jointly for the amount of plaintiff’s account, and for interest and costs. *Held,*there is no allegation in the petition which would authorize a money judgment to be rendered against plaintiff in error. It is not claimed in the petition that he was indebted to defendants in error. It is not sought therein to recover any monied judgment against him: besides, there is no prayer to that effect. The judgment, so far as plaintiff in error is concerned, is without any basis whatever in the pleading to support it. It has been frequently held that this is a fundamental error requiring the reversal of the judgment. [Dean v. Lyons, 47 Tex. 21; Parker v. Beavers, 19 Tex. 406; Thompson v. Thompson, 12 Tex. 327; Hall *&*Jones v. Jackson, 3 Tex. 305.]

June 8, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# New Airman magazine issue hits newsstands

              - Published  Nov. 4, 2013

**WASHINGTON (AFNS) --  **
The November/December issue of *Airman* magazine is now available to download and viewable through a web browser.

 Our cover story, titled “Capturing Space,” takes a remarkable look at the mission of Detachment 3 of the 21st Space Group, which, using some of the world’s most powerful telescopes, tracks man-made objects orbiting our planet. While that mission is fascinating in its own right, what truly sets it apart is its location – located on the top of Mount Haleakala, a dormant volcano, on the island of Maui, Hawaii.

Also featured in this month’s issue is “Back in Blue,” which tells the story of Staff Sgt. Anthony Loverde, who was discharged from the Air Force in 2008 under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. After the policy’s repeal in 2010, Loverde soon rejoined the Air Force, becoming only the second service member to be discharged under DADT and allowed back in.

Read more stories from “Around the Air Force,” and download *Airman *magazine’s November/December issue for your tablet here: 

-  Apple version -  Android version -  Kindle version

*Airman* magazine provides an interactive experience for tablet readers. For the first time since the roll-out of *Airman *magazine’s tablet version, a limited interactive version is viewable in web browser format here:**Click here****to read the November/December tablet edition of Airman Magazine on your PC/MAC.** 

For more stories, visit *Airman* Online, the website for the official magazine of the United States Air Force. 

 

Airman magazine

#             Related Links        

-  November/December 2013 Airman Magazine Teaser
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of J.R.W. and J.M., Children

Appellate case number: 01-21-00157-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-03761

Trial court: 308th District Court of Harris County

On March 29, 2021, appellant, mother, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s 

March 7, 2021 order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. This Court is required 

to bring the appeal to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was 

filed, so far as reasonably possible. See TEX. R.JUD. ADMIN. 6.2, reprinted in TEX. GOV’T 

CODE ANN. tit. 2, subtit. F app.

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed in this Court on or before April 29, 2021. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). However, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion to extend the 

deadline for filing her brief. Appellant is directed to file her brief in this Court within 

ten days of the date of this order.

If appellant fails to file a brief as directed in this order, we may abate this appeal 

and direct the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether appellant still wishes to 

pursue her appeal and whether substitute counsel should be appointed. See TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 107.016(2) (providing appointed counsel must continue to serve until appeal 

is exhausted or waived, or attorney is relieved of her duties and replaced by court).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ April Farris_________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___May 12, 2021____
Exhibit 12.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Envoy Capital Group Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the company and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;
 (b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;
 (c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and
 (d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal
control over financial reporting; and




---



##### 



5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
 ENVOY CAPITAL GROUP INC.Date:  March 16, 2009
    /s/  ANDREW PATIENTName:
    Andrew PatientTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer 2
#### HEATH & STICH, INC., Petitioner, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and the United States of America, Respondents.

No. 80-1927.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Unit A

April 2, 1981.

Law Offices of Allen & White, Frederick A. Douglas, Jr., San Antonio, Tex., for petitioner.

Baruch A. Fellner, U. S. Dept, of Labor, Allen H. Feldman, Washington, D. C., Benjamin R. Civiletti, Atty. Gen., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Al J. Daniel, Jr., Civ. Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondents.

Before GEE, RUBIN and RANDALL, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

The Court’s opinion dated April 2,1981 is withdrawn and the following is substituted:

The Secretary of Labor filed a complaint against Heath & Stich, Inc. on August 6, 1975, charging that firm with violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., on June 25, 1975. After an adverse determination by an Administrative Law Judge on August 27, 1976, Robert D. Moran, a commissioner on the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, directed that the case be reviewed by the Commission. That Commission took an unconscionable period, three years and nine months, to review and then affirm the ALJ’s opinion. Heath & Stich mailed its notice of appeal from the Commission’s decision timely, but it arrived at the office of the Clerk of Court one day late. The Secretary then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. To extenuate the apparent anomaly of the dismissal of a matter almost four years under consideration because the mail arrived one day late, the Secretary correctly notes that the Commission’s delay in ruling was not his fault.

The statute that determines and limits our jurisdiction requires that an appeal be “timely” filed, and mailing is not sufficient to constitute filing. 29 U.S.C. § 660(a). *See Lashley v. Ford Motor Co.,*518 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1975); compare *In Matter of Bad Bubba Racing Products, Inc.,*609 F.2d 815 (5th Cir. 1980). The regulations permitting service by mail apply only to notices governed by them and cannot alter the controlling statute.

We, therefore, have no alternative but to perform our duty and to dismiss the appeal. In doing so, we cannot refrain from noting that the OSHA Review Commission, while it may be independent, might respond to requests for action in cases that had been pending before it an undue amount of time, and that, whether it alone was torpid or whether others could have prompted it to bring matters to decision, the combination of a rigid statutory scheme with such protracted bureaucratic procedures, works a great injustice.
News United States Air Force
 Air Force secures additional funding for recruitment incentive programsPublished March 10, 2023
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --**
                After being suspended since 2014, the Air Force is reinstating the Enlisted College Loan Repayment Program to align enlistment incentives with sister services and further enhancing its current recruitment strategy.Potential recruits, regardless of Air Force Specialty Code, may be eligible to apply for ECLRP, which offers repayment plans up to $65,000.Members must complete training up to 3-skill level in their respective Air Force specialty and be contracted under the ECLRP to receive the benefit. This program will remain open until all annual funds are exhausted.Additionally, the **Air Force Recruiting Service** received additional funds for Initial Enlistment Bonuses to continue incentivizing potential recruits and sustain adequate manning in high-demand careers.Recruits who meet requirements for the ECLRP and an IEB, both incentives can be used, rather than one or the other.The **Air Force Reserve Component** also provides eligible enlisted and officer candidates support in alleviating student loan debt through their Student Loan Repayment Program. Once a qualified member completes one year of their six-year enlistment contract, annual payments up to $3,500 per year will be made directly to the lending institution toward the balance of federally-guaranteed student loans.The SLRP program is currently available to Air Force Reserve civilian, non-prior service accessions and prior-service Airmen, not to exceed $20,000 per individual over their six-year enlistment period. Approval is contingent upon available funding.The ECLRP and IEB programs were re-examined and approved for reinstatement by the Barriers to Service cross-functional team, which is currently re-valuating existing policy, guidance, resources, and legal authorization.Additionally, the team is currently executing a comprehensive policy review to identify existing requirements that disqualify many potential Airmen and **Guardians** from serving and are irrelevant to warfighting.For more information, visit **here**.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Enlisted College Loan Repayment Program 



recruiting 



Air Force Reserve Component 



Initial Enlistment Bonuses 



IEB 



ECLRP 



Student Loan Repayment Program 



SLRP 



Airmen 



guardians 



recruiting and accessions
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          37,672
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  179,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (32,630)
<INVENTORY>                                    132,532
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               317,124
<PP&E>                                          14,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,008)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,911,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,700,247
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    24,769,202
<OTHER-SE>                                (24,559,631)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,911,718
<SALES>                                        234,898
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,066
<CGS>                                           41,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               299,155
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,571
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (298,074)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,620
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (300,694)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (300,694)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)


</TABLE>