alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH EDWARD MCCLAIN.

April 18, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
EX‐35.3

 

 
|  (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.375 PARK AVE FL 2 Wells Fargo Securities, LLCNEW YORK, New York 10152-0002  RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2011-C5 Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2011 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"): (a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and (b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  February 25, 2016 /s/ Brian SmithBRIAN SMITHVice President    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2011 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2011-B, does hereby certify that:

 

1.             NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.             The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.             This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2014 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.             To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2014.

 

6.             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 30th day of March, 2015.

 

----

 
| March 30,   2015 |   |                 |
|-----------------------|--------|----------------------|
|                  |   |                 |
|                  | By:    | /s/   Brett D. Davis |
|                  | Name:  | Brett   D. Davis     |
|                  | Title: | President            |

 

----
#### IN THE MATTER OF DWIGHT JACKSON.

February 6, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
[No. 45497-8-I.

Division One.

May 30, 2000.]

#### Jonathan Von Gieseke, *Appellant,*v. Sharon H. Dale, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-2-01276-3, R. Joseph Wesley, J., entered September 13, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 13 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 13

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                       relating to school prayer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2007

    Mr. Murtha introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                       relating to school prayer.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit 
individual prayer in public schools or to prohibit school officials 
from including voluntary prayer in official school ceremonies and 
meetings. Neither the United States nor any State shall prescribe the 
content of any such prayer.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### DOUGLAS WILLIAMS v. HELEN MARSHALL.

March 27, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
[No. 45195-2-I.

Division One.

May 1, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. T.H., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-8-03675-3, Michael J. Trickey, J., entered August 11, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 25, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-31082

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICK A. WRIGHT, 

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:05-CR-30013-1 

--------------------

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Patrick A. Wright has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Wright filed a

response in which he alleges that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed

to allow us to fairly evaluate the merits of this issue. 

Therefore, it is not reviewable on direct appeal. See United

States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). 
No. 05-31082

-2-

Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Wright’s

response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert H. Baldwin, certify that:

 

1.                          I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of CityCenter Holdings, LLC; and

 

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.

 

 
| April 27, 2012 | /S/ ROBERT H. BALDWIN                              |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                | Robert   H. Baldwin                                |
|                | Chief   Executive Officer of Project CC,           |
|                | LLC,   managing member of CityCenter Holdings, LLC |

 

----
#### Troy, Appellee, *v.*Frazer, Appellant.

(Decided February 20, 1939.)

*67
      *Mr. Julius R. Samuels*and *Mr. E. P. Drury,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Ratterman, Cowell & Fletcher*and *Mr. I. J. II or wits,*for appellant.

Hamilton, P. J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from the Municipal Court of Cincinnati, Ohio.

The only question presented is the claim of error on the part of the Municipal Court in overruling the motion for new trial and entering judgment for plaintiff.

The grounds of the motion for new trial were based on the claim of abuse of discretion in refusing the defendant a continuance on account of her illness and permitting the case to go to trial and judgment in her absence.

It appears from the record that on the day the case was first called for trial, the court continued the case until the next day to give counsel an opportunity to present a doctor’s certificate. When the doctor’s certificate was duly presented, the court continued the case for a week. Again,, the defendant claimed illness and asked for another continuance, presenting a doctor’s certificate to the effect that the defendant “is under my care and not able to be out of the house, and will have to stay in bed for some time to come.” Her trouble was varicose veins. Her attorney was present in court at the trial and cross-examined plaintiff’s witnesses. Defendant’s son was in court, but left without testifying. It was shown that the son was present' when the transaction out of which the suit arose took place and knew all about the matter.

The suit was upon two notes or due bills for $50 each given by defendant to plaintiff as part of the purchase price of a restaurant. Two payments were made' and credited on the notes in the amount of $30, leaving the sum of $70 due, for which judgment was given.

*68Judges might differ as to the propriety of refusing a third continuance under the circumstances, but that would not justify the. conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in so doing. Counsel for defendant, although in court, and having cross-examined plaintiff’s witnesses did not suggest any defense she might have or any evidence that defendant might give if present. She had a witness, the son of defendant, who left during the trial.

The majority of the court is of opinion that the record fails to show such an abuse of discretion as requires a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Matthews, J., concurs.

Ross, J.,

dissenting. It appears that the defendant was seriously ill at the time her counsel was forced into the trial of the case, and that she had a valid defense. The excuse for the action of the court is based upon the fact that her son was cognizant of the facts upon which she relied for defense. She was entitled to her day in court. She was unable to be present because of illness, certified to by physicians. Her case was forced to trial. Such action, in my opinion, constitutes such an abuse of judicial discretion as to demand a remand of the case for fair trial.
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |                                                                                                               |  | 
|---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1086-120, 12th Floor 550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 |  | 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2011, by and among GS Mortgage Securities
Corporation II, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, , as Master Servicer, Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, , and Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator,
with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2011-GC5 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this 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, 2013 through December 31, 2013, 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 this Agreement in all material respects throughout the period January 1, 2013 through
December 31, 2013.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 13th day of March 2014.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ Daniel Bober                         
|Daniel Bober                             
|Executive Vice President Wells Fargo
Bank



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
Exhibit 31.1

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

I,
Philip Z. Weisberg, certify that:

1.           I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of FX Alliance 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;

3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.           The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant and have:



5.           The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



/s/ PHILIP Z. WEISBERG Philip Z. Weisberg Chief Executive OfficerMarch 29, 2012


---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                          34,556
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,488,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                   239,918
<INVENTORY>                                    295,436
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,578,748
<PP&E>                                         795,429
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,639,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,461,727
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        97,739
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,159,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,639,085
<SALES>                                      7,141,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,141,906
<CGS>                                        5,319,310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,965,818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,669
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             435,594
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                176,089
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            176,089
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,803)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 DAF streamlines awards processPublished Jan. 18, 2024
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --**
                The Department of the Air Force will launch new software and policies to improve the decorations approval process today.
myDecs Reimagined, a new application on the myFSS platform, will be a single-page experience and allows ad-hoc routing to any myFSS user. The new application also eliminates the need for multiple screens found in the previous version.
“This new software coincides with a policy change to move the DAF away from reliance on the centralized Military Personnel Flights to file approved and signed decorations. Trust and responsibility is placed back with the approval authority and the record now updates automatically upon signature,” said Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services **Lt. Gen. Caroline Miller**. “Our goal is to make the system more intuitive and create a smoother process for users.”
Airmen and Guardians in operational units met with DAF decorations experts to shape the new system and were the catalyst for the policy changes. Quality review checks previously performed by MPF members are now automated, freeing personnel to focus on strengthening their recognition programs.
Users and approval authorities will see the following changes:
• Like myEval, users choose who they route to and have a dashboard to track decorations
• Nominators name the approval authority when drafting the nomination
• Decorations are fully editable until signed
• Users may add comments and routing notes
• Upon approval, the decoration goes directly into the record
• MPFs no longer review each transaction and strengthen their advisory and audit role
• Like myEval, only HR Technician roles for the CSS and MPF are now needed
The following decorations will be processed in myDecs Reimagined. Others may be added in the future:
Air and Space Meritorious Service Medal
Air and Space Commendation Medal
Air and Space Achievement Medal
Aerial Achievement Medal
Combat Readiness Medal
Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal
Airmen and Guardians should visit myDecs Reimagined by going to **myFSS** and selecting “myDecs” for more information.FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



awards 



decorations 



process 



myDecs Reimagined 



myFSS 



new software 



Lt. Gen. Caroline Miller 



innovation 



Airmen 



guardians 



DAF 



myDecs
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, the President of PHL Variable Insurance Company (the registrant), certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the registrant;



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;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrant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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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



(c)

disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.





|      |                 |                           | 
|----- | --------------- | ------------------------- | 
|Date: | August 14, 2009 | /s/ Philip K. Polkinghorn
|      | Name:           | Philip K. Polkinghorn    
|      | Title:          | President