alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CERTIFICATION

 

Re:          **Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2011-C3, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2011-C3**(the “Transaction”), issued pursuant tothe Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2011 (the “Poolingand Servicing Agreement”), executed in connection with the Transaction(capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth inthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement).

 

 

               I, George Kok, certify that:

 

               1.             Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required tobe filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of MorganStanley Capital I Trust 2011-C3 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

               2.            Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 

 

               3.            Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

 

               4.            Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

               5.             Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and ExchangeAct 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 ofnoncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report onForm 10-K.  

 

               In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on informationprovided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

·        U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee

·        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCertificate Administrator

·        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCustodian

·        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asMaster Servicer

·        Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNCBank, National Association, as Special Servicer

·        Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., asOperating Advisor

·        CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services,Inc., as Servicing Function Participant

·        National Tax Search, LLC, as ServicingFunction Participant

 

 

Date:  March 29, 2019

 

 

By /s/ George Kok

Name: George Kok

Title: President
No. 11,734.

#### Myers et al. *v.*Lawyer et al.

Agbeed *Case.*— Jurisdiction.—Affidavit *of Facts.*— Practice.—In order to confer jurisdiction upon the court to hear and determine an agreed case, the agreed statement of facts must be supported by an affidavit that the controversy is real and the proceedings in good faith to determine the rights of the parties.

*Same.*— Transcript.—Supreme *Court.*— Upon appeal from a judgment rendered in such case, the transcript must embrace a copy of such affidavit; otherwise the record presents no question for decision.

*Same.*— Statement *of Clerk*— In such case the statement of the clerk that such affidavit was filed will not supply such omission.

From the Hamilton Circuit Court.

*T. J. Kane*and *T.*P. Davis, for appellants.

*G. Shirts*and *W. JR. Fertig,*for appellees.

Best, C. —

There are no pleadings in this cause. It was submitted and determined as an agreed case, under section 553 of the R. S. 1881. This section authorizes parties “to submit any matter of controversy between them to any court that would otherwise have jurisdiction of such cause, upon an agreed statement of facts to be made .out and signed by the parties, but it must appear by affidavit that the controversy is real and the proceedings in good faith, to determine the rights of the parties.” This section authorizes the determination of such controversy upon an agreed statement supported by the requisite affidavit, without pleadings. The record in this case contains the statement, but no affidavit accompanies the statement. This was necessary, as in the absence of an affidavit the record presents no question for decision by this court. This has heretofore been decided. *Sharpe*v. Sharpe, 27 Ind. 507; *Manchester*v. *Dodge,*57 Ind. 584; *Godfrey*v. *Wilson,*70 Ind. 50.

The clerk in this cause prefaced a copy of the agreed statement of facts with the recital that one of the attorneys had filed the requisite affidavit, but the affidavit itself is not in the *238record, and its existence can not thus be shown. The affidavit is an essential paper in the cause, and it is just as necessary to procure a transcript of it in order to present any question to this court, upon an agreed case, as to procure a transcript of the agreed statement of facts. Without an affidavit the court in such cases has no jurisdiction, and it is therefore essentially necessary that the record shall contain the affidavit as well as the agreed statement of facts. In this condition of the record, no question is presented, and, therefore, the judgment can not be disturbed.

Filed Dec. 13, 1884.

Petition for a rehearing overruled Feb. 14, 1885.

Pee Cueiam. — It is therefore ordered, upon the foregoing opinion, that the judgment be and it is hereby affirmed, at the appellants’ costs.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JU

JUDGMENT

Nos. 04-17-00825-CR and 04-17-00835-CR

James STRIBLIN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2013CR4271 and 2013CR4270

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgments of the trial court are 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 19, 2018.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 16, 2020.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1562

Lower Tribunal No. 18-4837

________________

Gregory Kamal Walker,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Cristina Miranda, Judge.

Gregory Kamal Walker, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for respondent.

Before LINDSEY, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Kamal Walker appeals an order denying his motion to reduce or 
2

modify his sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The trial 

court denied the motion as untimely because it was filed more than sixty days after 

the imposition of sentence. “Such an order is not reviewable by appeal but may be 

reviewed under this court’s certiorari jurisdiction.” Montesino v. State, 231 So. 3d 

514, 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (quoting Johnson v. State, 932 So. 2d 562, 562 (Fla. 

3d DCA 2006)). We therefore treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and 

deny the petition.

Rule 3.800(c) provides in pertinent part:

A court may reduce or modify to include any of the 

provisions of chapter 948, Florida Statutes, a legal 

sentence imposed by it, sua sponte, or upon motion filed, 

within 60 days after the imposition, or within 60 days after 

receipt by the court of a mandate issued by the appellate 

court on affirmance of the judgment and/or sentence on an 

original appeal . . . . 

Walker provided his motion to corrections authorities for mailing on July 27, 2020, 

well beyond the sixty-day limit after his guilty plea and imposition of his sentence 

on February 11, 2019. His contention that the motion was timely as it was filed 

within sixty days of his receipt of a mandate from this court is without merit, since 

this mandate stemmed from a post-conviction motion he filed and not from a direct 

appeal following entry of his plea. See Barcelona v. State, 974 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2008). As the trial court was correct regarding the motion’s untimeliness, we 

deny the petition.
3

Petition denied.1

1 We again remind the trial courts, “that the routine language in its order[s] that the 

defendant has the right to appeal th[e] denial of a rule 3.800(c) motion is incorrect 

and should be eliminated. There is no right of appeal of those orders.” Montesino, 

231 So. 3d at 515 (quoting Howard v. State, 914 So.2d 455, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2005).
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4964-H4965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         THE EPA AND SAN DIEGO

  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, check this out. A Mexican spokesman said, 

[[Page H4965]] Mexico has no money to honor NAFTA, and Uncle Sam will 
have to clean up the pollution on the border. Now that means that 
millions of gallons of raw sewage from Tijuana will contaminate the 
beaches of San Diego. It also means that San Diego will have to come up 
with $16,000,000 to build the treatment plant because Mexico was 
supposed to but they cannot. But the EPA says, in any regard, no one is 
going to build a treatment plant down there because you will endanger 
the habitat of the pocket mouse.
  Beam me up. People in San Diego are swimming in raw fecal matter, and 
the EPA is worried about the pocket mouse. Ladies and gentlemen, why 
don't we let Mickey Mouse take care of the pocket mouse and EPA take 
care of the American people like they are supposed to.
  I say maybe it is time we enforce NAFTA and also pass the clean water 
bill. It is a commonsense bill.

                          ____________________
```
(logo) TORCHLIGHTLOAN SERVICES ** ****ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**** **CERTIFICATION J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2011-C5Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through CertificatesSeries 2011-C5 (the “Trust”)  I, Jacob Baron, on behalf of Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as special servicer (the “Certifying Servicer”), certify to J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. and its officers, directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that they will rely upon this certification, that: 1. I (or Servicing Officers under my supervision) have reviewed the Certifying Servicer’s activities during the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”) and the Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and 2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  Date: March 11, 2016 TORCHLIGHT LOAN SERVICES, LLC By: /s/ Jacob Baron Name: Jacob BaronTitle: Authorized Signatory  475 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10017T 212.883.2800 F 212.883.2560E info@torchlightloanservices.comwww.torchlightinvestors.com
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

130028 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. ROBERT DANTUMA and Stephen J. Markman, SHELLY DANTUMA, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 130028 COA: 262867 Kent CC: 03-011366-NH SPECTRUM HEALTH, BUTTERWORTH OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, INC., d/b/a SPECTRUM HEALTH OCCUPATIONAL SERVICES, and DR. ROBERT RICHMOND, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to a ppeal the October 25, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0424 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2006

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6463

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.
JAMES EDWARD THOMAS,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:97-cr-00299-MR-1)

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Thomas Meier, MEIER LAW, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Edward Thomas appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Thomas , No. 3:97-cr-00299-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2009). We deny Thomas’ motion for appointment of counsel and 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
News United States Air Force
 Chaudhary sworn in as Air Force Energy, Installations and Environment leadPublished April 7, 2023
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --**
                **Dr. Ravi Chaudhary** swore in as the assistant secretary of the **Air Force for Energy, Installations and Environment** during a ceremony at the Pentagon April 7, following his confirmation to the role by the U.S. Senate, March 15.This is the official portrait of Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Installations and the Environment Ravi Chaudhary.Shown is Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Installations and the Environment Dr. Ravi Chaudhary. He is responsible for the execution of plans, policies, programs and budgets to meet the Department of the Air Force’s energy, installations, environment, safety and occupational health objectives. (U.S. Air Force photo)
            
            
            Photo Details /
                Download Hi-Res

    











Chaudhary, a former **C-17 Globemaster III** pilot and **Federal Aviation Administration** executive, most recently served as the acting deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for Energy.
“A big congratulations to Dr. Ravi Chaudhary on his Senate confirmation. We’re excited for his leadership in our energy, installations and environment initiatives,” said Secretary of the Air Force **Frank Kendall**. “Ravi’s experience serving in numerous government agencies, to include the Department of the Air Force as a pilot, space launch engineer and acquisition officer, will be a major asset to our team as he steps into his new role.”
In this capacity, Chaudhary is responsible for the execution of plans, policies, programs and budgets to meet the Department of the Air Force’s energy, installations, environment, safety and occupational health objectives.FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



DAF 



Ravi Chaudhary 



assistant secretary 



energy 



installations 



environment 



safety 



occupational health 



plans 



policies 



programs 



budgets
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00623-CV

In re Guadalupe Padilla

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Guadalupe Padilla, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also

Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. Padilla’s petition requests issuance of a writ of mandamus directed to the 

Travis County District Clerk.

However, as an intermediate appellate court, we may issue writs of mandamus 

only against a district judge or county judge sitting in our district, or to enforce our jurisdiction. 

See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. We lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a 

district clerk unless doing so is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See id.; In re Washington, 

7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding); In re Simpson, 

997 S.W.2d 939, 939 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. proceeding); In re Strickhausen, 

994 S.W.2d 936, 936 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). Here, Padilla 

failed to demonstrate that the exercise of our writ power is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.
2

Accordingly, the mandamus petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Filed: December 8, 2021
#### A. B. Howard v. Ed. Moore et al.

(No. 1277, R. Book No. 4, p. 191.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 225. *Beconvention and set-off.*Where H. sued M. and wife for $326.40 back taxes which he was compelled *90to pay on land sold him by them, and M. and wife pleaded specially in reconvention that the consideration to be paid by H. for said land was nine hundred and fifty sewing machines, to be delivered in good running order and accompanied with all the usual attachments, which contract was not complied with by H. in the machines he delivered, whereby they were damaged in the sum of $1,000, *held,*that the cause of action thus pleaded by M. and wife arose out of, was incident to and connected with, plaintiff’s cause of action, and was a good plea in reconvention under the statute. [Rev. Stats, art. 650.]

November 8, 1882.

§ 226. *Statute of limitation.*The statute of limitation of two years does not apply to actions founded upon a contract in writing. Such contract is not barred until the lapse of four years. [Rev. Stats, arts. 3205-3207.]

§ 227. *Measure of damages on a breach of warranty of chattels.*The measure of damages on a breach of warranty of chattels as to the kind or quality of the property sold is the difference between the actual value of the property and its value as represented or warranted. [Field on Damages, 272; 3 Pars, on Cont. 211.] And this value, as a general rule, is the market value at the time and place fixed for the delivery of the property. [Field on Damages, 261.]

Reversed and remanded.
# News

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

# Operation Christmas Drop continues as Pacific tradition

              - Published  Dec. 9, 2013
              -                             By Senior Airman Marianique Santos                                                    
              - 36th Wing Public Affairs

**ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam (AFNS) --  **
Base volunteers here will team up with Airmen from Yokota Air Base, Japan, to conduct humanitarian airdrops over the remote islands of Micronesia in the Western Pacific this week.

Volunteers here have been spreading the holiday cheer to surrounding islands since December 1952. Operation Christmas Drop is the longest running humanitarian airlift mission supported by the Department of Defense.

U.S. military service members, their families, and the people of Guam teamed up with the Christmas Drop Organization to ensure a successful mission.  The Christmas Drop Organization is a private organization of volunteers that directs fundraising efforts, coordinates the gathering of donated items, and oversees community involvement activities.

"The yearly success of this drop is a testament to the generosity of the civilian and military population of Guam," said Master Sgt. Bobby Lynch, the Operation Christmas Drop committee president. "We continue to do this to help improve the quality of life of the islanders. We may take it for granted that we can go to a mall to purchase our daily needs, but these folks do not have the same privilege from where they live." 

Operation Christmas Drop packages aid the men and women of more than 50 islands, including Chuuk, Palau, Yap, Marshall Islands and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Boxes contain toys, clothing, fishing equipment, sporting goods, food items, tools and other equipment that help people in the islands with their livelihood.

 "In the spirit of the holiday season, what we can do is help and share what we have," Lynch said. 

In addition to collaborating with the community of Guam, Operation Christmas Drop demonstrates the inter-wing partnership between Andersen AFB and Yokota AB.

Each December, C-130 Hercules crews from the 374th Airlift Wing fly to Andersen AFB, which is used as a "base camp" to airlift the donated goods to islanders throughout Micronesia. Yokota AB aircrews find valuable training opportunities through the unique airdrop environment that Operation Christmas Drop offers.

Andersen AFB Christmas Drop volunteers stress the importance the packages have on the daily lives of the Micronesians receiving them.

"This drop cannot happen successfully without the participation of everyone, regardless of which branch you belong to or whether or not you're in the military," Lynch said.

Anderson AFBGuamOperation Christmas Drop

#             Related Links        

-  Christmas Drop: Airmen deliver gifts, supplies to remote Pacific
Atkins v. State Page 1 

### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 12

- 00144

- CR

JOSEPH ATKINS

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- 1252

- C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joseph Atkins attempts to appeal from his conviction for posses sion of a

controlled substance. By letter dated May 18, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified

Atkins that the appeal was subject to dismissal because it appeared that the trial court’s

certificate of right of appeal i ndicated that this was a plea bargain case and he had no

right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2 (a) (2), (d). The record contains a written waiver

of appeal signed by Atkins. The Clerk also warned Atkins that the appeal would be

dismissed unless, wit hin 21 days of the date of the letter, a response was filed showingAtkins v. State Page 2

grounds for continuing the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 44.3. A tkins did not file a

response.

Accordin gly, this appeal is dismissed.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray

, Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed July 19, 2012

Do not publish

[CR 25]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 24

- 00491

- CV

Frederick Barcase , Appellant

v.

Iriaquez Ironworks, LLC a/k/a Lakeway Ironworks, LLC , Appellee

FROM THE 395TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 24

- 0068

- C395 , THE HONORABLE RYAN D. LARSON , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Frederick Barcase has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal without

prejudice and requests that this Court reimburse him for the cost of the filing fee. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We deny his request for reimbursement but otherwise g rant the motion and

dismiss the appeal without prejudice

. See id

.

____________ ______________________________ Rosa Lopez Theofanis , Justice

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Theofanis

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: August 29 , 2024