alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
763 A.2d 809

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Hardge DAVIS, Jr., Respondent.

Nos. 561 and 609 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 16, 2000.

*587
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 16th day of November, 2000, on certification by the Disciplinary Board that the respondent, HARDGE DAVIS, JR., who was suspended by Orders of this Court dated March 23, 2000 and October 19, 2000, for two consecutive three month periods, has filed a verified statement showing compliance with all the terms and conditions of the Orders of Suspension and Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E., and there being no other outstanding order of suspension or disbarment, HARDGE DAVIS, JR., is hereby reinstated to active status, effective immediately.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Paul C. Honda, 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 Honda Auto Receivables 2011-3
Owner Trust (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 servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required
in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and



5. All 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: DealerTrack Collateral Management Services
and Union Bank, N.A.







Date: June 26, 2012







_/s/ Paul C. Honda___________________

Paul C. Honda
Vice President, Assistant Secretary and Compliance Officer

of American Honda Finance Corporation

(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          42,048
<SECURITIES>                                    62,218
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,860
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,316
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               169,138
<PP&E>                                          26,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,179
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 188,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,448
<BONDS>                                            239
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           526
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,332
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   188,545
<SALES>                                        163,182
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               163,182
<CGS>                                           59,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,359
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (4,557)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,380
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,031
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,349
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2099

LUIS JANER RULLAN,

Creditor - Appellant,

and

GEORGE WILLIAM LIEBMANN,

Trustee - Appellant,

v.

JILL K. GODEN,

Debtor - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-02887-CCB; 1:21-cv-03170-CCB; 

1:21-cv-03171-CCB)

Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 27, 2023

Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2099 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

George W. Liebmann, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Peter C. Choharis, CHOHARIS LAW 

GROUP, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant Luis Janer Rullan.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2099 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Luis Janer Rullan and George William Liebmann appeal from the district court’s 

order affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders dismissing Jill K. Goden’s Chapter 7 

bankruptcy case, denying Rullan’s motion for sanctions, and denying as moot Liebmann’s 

pending motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error and no abuse 

of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Rullan v. Goden, Nos. 

1:21-cv-02887-CCB; 1:21-cv-03170-CCB; 1:21-cv-03171-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 21, 2022). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2099 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
416 A.2d 1125

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Joseph TAYLOR, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Aug. 6, 1979.

Filed Dec. 21, 1979.

*133Joseph P. Zawrotny, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, Chief, Appeals Division, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Before WATKINS, MANDERINO and CIRILLO, JJ.*

*

 Justice Louis L. Manderino of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and Judge Vincent A. Cirillo of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, are sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Joseph Taylor, was tried before a judge sitting without a jury and found guilty of murder of the third degree. Post-verdict motions were denied, and appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than five nor more than twenty years in prison. This appeal followed.

On March 20, 1977, at 6:25 p. m., appellant was arrested in connection with the fatal beating of his mother. Appellant was informed of his *Miranda*rights and questioned until 8:00 p. m., when he was given a polygraph examination. Around 9:30 p. m., after the polygraph examination, appellant was again informed of his *Miranda*rights. A statement *134was elicited from appellant during this period which was reduced to writing and signed by appellant. At 11:53 p. m., appellant was arraigned.

In this appeal, appellant contends that his statements to the police should have been suppressed because (1) he was under a severe emotional strain after being told that his mother was dead rendering him incapable of giving a voluntary statement, (2) he was not properly informed of his *Miranda*rights, and (3) the statement was the result *of*physical and psychological coercion. We must reject these arguments. They are all based on evidence in the record which was rejected by the suppression court. This court is not to determine questions of credibility but is to determine whether the record is sufficient to sustain the suppression court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. *See Commonwealth v. O’Bryant,*479 Pa. 534, 388 A.2d 1059 (1978).

The suppression court found that the appellant had been properly informed of his *Miranda*rights, was not coerced in any way into giving his statement but rather voluntarily made the statement. No reason has been given to disturb the trial court’s conclusion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

This decision was reached prior to the death of MANDERINO, J.
EX-35.4
(logo) WELLS FARGO

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 November 1, 2011, by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities,
Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, , as Master
Servicer, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, NA, as Special
Servicer, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Tax Administrator and
Custodian, and Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor, with
respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2011-C5 (the
"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the
meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 11.11 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) Together we'll go far
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-59307, 333-35060 and 333-67520) pertaining to the 1997 Stock
Option Plan of Notify Technology Corporation and the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-60552 and 333-71940) of Notify Technology Corporation and in
the related Prospectuses of our report dated October 31, 2002, with respect to
the financial statements of Notify Technology Corporation included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended September 30, 2002.

                                                     /s/Ernst & Young LLP

San Jose, California
December 23, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HEMASURE INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000919745
<NAME>                                         Battle Fowler LLP
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         27,865
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                   26
<INVENTORY>                                    1,470
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               31,253
<PP&E>                                         4,521
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,463
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 33,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,209
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       196
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,921
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   33,361
<SALES>                                        1,816
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,816
<CGS>                                          2,184
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,184
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,723
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (374)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,319)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,319)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,319)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 72 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 72

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 110-92 is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and 
inserting ``December 31, 2007''.
    Sec. 2.  Public Law 110-92 is further amended by adding at the end 
the following new sections:
    ``Sec. 160.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
resolution, there is appropriated for payment to the heirs at law of 
Julia Carson, late a Representative from the State of Indiana, 
$165,200.
    ``Sec. 161.  Notwithstanding section 106, the authority to provide 
care and services under section 1710(e)(1)(E) of title 38, United 
States Code, shall continue in effect through September 30, 2008.
    ``Sec. 162.  Notwithstanding section 106, the authority provided by 
section 2306(d)(3) of title 38, United States Code, shall continue in 
effect through September 30, 2008.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 19, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 72

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and 
                          for other purposes.
```
583 A.2d 326

#### W.W. v. I.M.

February 20, 1990.

Motion to dismiss the appeal granted. (See 231 *N.J.Super.*495, 555 A.2d 1149)
Exhibit 31.2


CERTIFICATION





I, Cary Baetz, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, of Seventy Seven Energy 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. 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)) 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.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 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; andd.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





4. 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):


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; andb.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.





December 19, 2016/s/ Cary BaetzCary BaetzChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Exhibit 10(c)




	CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




	We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this
      Registration Statement on Form N-1A of the Merrill Lynch Fundamental Growth
      Principal Protected Fund of our report dated March 21, 2003, relating to
      the financial statements of Main Place Funding, LLC, which appears in Main
      Place Funding, LLC’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
      December 31, 2002.




	/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP




	Charlotte, North Carolina  

      December 22, 2003
#### St. Louis, Ark. & Tex. R’y Co. v. J. J. Pickens.

(No. 2991.)

Appeal from Hopkins County.

Perkins, Gilbert & Perkins and Leach & Temple-ton, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 398. *Measure of damage for stock killed by railroad; evidence as to value; evidence held insufficient to support verdict.*Appellee recovered judgment against appellant "''for $165 damages for killing one cow alleged to be worth $20, and one Ayrshire calf alleged to be worth $175. As to the value of the calf, appellee in his own behalf testified that it was worth $150 or $175, but that he knew of no market in the county for such calves.. The calf was not a full-blooded Ayrshire, but was part Durham. Gilbert, a witness for appellant, who qualified himself as an expert as to the value of fine-blooded cattle, testified that Durhams, Jerseys, Holsteins and Herefords were higher priced than Ayrshires, and that full-blooded Jersey calves four or five months old were worth from $50 to $150, whilst a mixed blood, such as the calf in question, was worth much less. Held, the value of the calf was not sufficiently proved, and the verdict is excessive. Article 4245, Revised Statutes, declares that a railroad company shall be liable to the owner for *the valtie*of all stock killed or injured by the locomotives and cars of the company. *The value*is the fixed measure of damage; and this value, as a general rule, is to be ascertained by testimony of the price at which such animals are bought and' sold. If there is a market for such animals the market price is the measure of value. If there is no market at the place, evidence may be admitted of the price at the nearest market. The value of the animal to the owner is not the proper rule to determine value by. *472Where there is no market for an article, other means may be resorted to for the purpose of fixing the value. The intrinsic qualities of the thing, its uses, and any facts which would naturally affect the mind of parties buying or selling in determining the price to be given or asked, are relevant to the question of value. [1 App. C. C. §§ 147, 1174; R’y Co. v. Hogsett, 67 Tex. 685; Abbott’s Trial Ev. 307.]

November 21, 1888.

Reversed and remanded.