alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (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 July 1, 2014, by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C21 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 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 July 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”),  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 the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

 

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

                                                                                                

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President                         

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
#### WEKIVA SPRINGS RESERVE HOMEOWNERS, etc., Petitioner, v. John J. BINNS and Renee Binns, Respondent.

No. 5D10-3521.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 6, 2011.

Patryk Ozim, of Larsen & Associates, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner.

Renee Binns, of Binns Family Law Assoc., Ft. Myers, for Respondent.

*1191ORFINGER, J.

Wekiva Springs Reserve Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Association”) seeks second-tier certiorari review of an opinion of the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity. The circuit court reversed a county court judgment entered in favor of the Association following a non-jury trial. In its opinion, the circuit court disagreed with the county court’s conclusion that Respondents, John and Renee Binns, were not entitled to an award of damages based on the Association’s failure to comply with the Binns’s written record request pursuant to section 720.303(5), Florida Statutes (2006), because the Association’s actions were not willful. The circuit court’s order represents a departure from the essential requirements of law. Therefore, we grant the petition, and quash the circuit court’s decision.

District courts apply a two-prong test on second-tier certiorari review: whether the circuit court applied the correct law and whether the circuit court afforded the procedural due process. *See Miami-Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc.,*863 So.2d 195, 199 (Fla.2003). Pursuant to these principles, the district court should grant the second-tier certio-rari *“only*when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in the miscarriage of justice.” *Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co.,*62 So.3d 1086, 1092 (Fla.2010). In determining whether the circuit court has applied the correct law in its review of a county court judgment, a district court must consider whether the circuit court failed to apply the correct law as clearly established. Clearly established law can be derived not only from case law dealing with the same issue of law, but also from “an interpretation or application of a statute, a procedural rule, or a constitutional provision....” *Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos,*843 So.2d 885, 890 (Fla.2003).

It is axiomatic that an appellate court, in this case the circuit court, is not permitted to reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the county court. *State v. Kirby,*752 So.2d 36, 37-38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). “[A] lower court’s ultimate factual determinations during a non-jury trial may not be disturbed on appeal unless shown to be unsupported by competent and substantial evidence.... ” *Zupnik Haverland, L.L.C. v. Current Builders of Fla., Inc.,*7 So.3d 1132, 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). In the instant case, it is clear that the circuit court reweighed the evidence to reach a conclusion different from the county court. This was improper and violates clearly established law. As a consequence, we quash the circuit court’s opinion.

CERTIORARI GRANTED; CIRCUIT COURT OPINION QUASHED.

MONACO, C.J., and COHEN, J., concur.
#### THE PACKER CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 13904.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

March 3, 1960.

David N. Mills, of Cook, Beake, Miller, Wrock & Cross, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Charles K. Rice, Arthur I. Gould, Dept. of Justice, A. F. Prescott, Washington, D. C., also Lee A. Jackson, and Fred W. Kaess, U. S. Atty., and Elmer L. Pfeifle, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for appellee.

Before CECIL and WEICK, Circuit Judges, and KENT, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard upon the record and briefs, and oral argument of counsel, and the Court being fully advised in the premise, it appearing that the findings of fact of the District Judge are not clearly erroneous; Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.:

It is ordered that the decision of the District Judge be and it is hereby affirmed upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in the opinion of District Judge Clifford O’Sullivan, 183 F.Supp. 456.
EXHIBIT 99

                                  CERTIFICATION

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned hereby certifies in his or her capacity as an officer of PennFed
Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report of the
Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial
statements included in such report.

                                     By:  /s/ Joseph L. LaMonica
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Joseph L. LaMonica
                                          President and Chief
                                          Executive Officer

                                          Date: May 14, 2003


                                     By:  /s/ Claire M. Chadwick
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Claire M. Chadwick
                                          Executive Vice President,
                                          Chief Financial Officer and Controller

                                          Date: May 14, 2003


                                       30
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David LEE.

No. 2010-KK-1748.

Supreme Court, of Louisiana.

Aug. 5, 2010.

In re Lee, David; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court *380Div. A, No. 491-849; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0706.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7298 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7298

  To repeal the perimeter rule for Ronald Reagan Washington National 
                    Airport, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2018

   Mr. Brat introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the perimeter rule for Ronald Reagan Washington National 
                    Airport, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Connect America's Capital Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) The bipartisan Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, signed 
        into law by President Jimmy Carter, and the subsequent 
        explosive growth in American commercial aviation has proven 
        that it is counterproductive for Congress to interfere with 
        market forces and restrict where airlines can and cannot fly.
            (2) Advancements in technology, such as Stage 4 and Stage 5 
        Aircraft, as well as the steady growth of enplanements and 
        passenger traffic at Dulles International Airport, make 
        arguments for the perimeter rule less and less relevant.
            (3) Residents of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and 
        Virginia should have more options, not less, when choosing 
        direct flights and where they can fly.
            (4) American citizens wishing to visit Washington, DC, 
        deserve to be better connected to the nation's capital.
            (5) Consumers and airlines, not Members of Congress, should 
        determine airline routes.

SEC. 3. RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 449 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by striking section 49109.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 449 of 
title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating 
to section 49109 and inserting the following:

``49109. Repealed''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


The Board of Directors
eShare.com, Inc. (formerly
  eShare Technology, Inc.);


We have audited the balance sheets of eShare.com, Inc. (formerly eShare
Technologies, Inc.) as of December 31, 1997 and 1998, and the related statements
of operations, redeemable preferred stock and stockholders' deficit and cash
flows for the years then ended (not presented separately herein). These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of eShare.com, Inc. (formerly
eShare Technologies, Inc.) as of December 31, 1997 and 1998, and the results of
its operations and its cash flows for the years ended, in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.


                                         KPMG LLP



Melville, New York
April 16, 1999, except for
  Note 12, which is as
  of June 15, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Amendment No. 3 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Baixo Relocation Services Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended February 28, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Hue, President/Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|                        |  |                                                               | 
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: February 28, 2017 |  | */s/ Richard Hue*                                             | 
|                        |  | Richard Hue                                                   | 
|                        |  | President/Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
#### Mo. Pac. R’y Co. v. S. S. Patterson.

(No. 3271.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 808. *Suggestion of delay; effect of; case stated.*Appellee recovered judgment against appellant for $135 for *714injury caused by fire communicated from appellant’s engine to his grass, and the turf thereof. Appellee submits the cause on a suggestion of delay and prayer for damages. This opens the case as to all errors of record, whether assigned or not. [Batey v. Dibrell, 28 Tex. 172; Furlow v. Miller, 30 Tex. 28; Davis v. Marshall, 25 Tex. 372; Bradford v. Johnson, 44 Tex. 381.]

May 4, 1885.

§ 809. *Damage to grass and turf; insufficient findings of fact to support judgment for.*There is no statement of facts in the record. In his conclusions of fact the trial judge found that the grass on thirty acres of appellee’s land was destroyed by appellant’s negligence. The value of the grass he found to be $3.50 per acre, and the injury to the turf $1.50 per acre. There is nothing in the findings of the court showing the use or purpose to which this land had been devoted. Nor does it appear that the land was inclosed. In R. R. Co. v. Tippit, *ante,*p. 710, we held that the true rule for measuring the damages in this class of cases, considering the purposes to which the land had been devoted by the owner, was the difference in the value of the land immediately before and immediately after the fir©. In the application of this rule the use to which the land was devoted must, be made to appear, and because this is not made to appear in this case, the judgment must be set aside.

Reversed and remanded.
#### D.F., Father of K.P., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 5D10-3721.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 26, 2011.

Mark A. Skipper, Office of the Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Fifth District, Orlando, and Jeffrey Deen, Regional Counsel, Office of the Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Fifth District, Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.

Jeffrey Dana Gillen, Department of Children and Family Services, West Palm Beach, for Appellee.

*1200Wendie Michelle Cooper, Tavares, for Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

The father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights. The Department of Children and Families concedes that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, we reverse the Final Judgment for Termination of Parental Rights, as to the father only, and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
#### Julian CARR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.D. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Julian Carr, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 00-6337, 00-6667.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 2001.

Decided Jan. 17, 2001.

Julian Carr, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, Julian Carr seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and *249the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. *Carr v. Robinson,*Nos. CA-00-68AM; CA-99-1483-AM (E.D.Va. Feb. 7, 2000; Apr. 19, 2000).* Carr’s motion to consolidate is granted. We 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.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 Although the district court’s orders were marked as "filed” on February 2, 2000, and April 18, 2000, respectively, the district court’s records show that they were entered on the docket sheet on February 7, 2000, and April 18, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the orders were entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decisions. *Wilson v. Murray,*806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
Exhibit 99.1 

HMN FINANCIAL, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HMN Financial, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael McNeil, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

Date:  11/13/2002                                             /s/ Michael McNeil
    Michael McNeil, 				President

(Principal Executive Officer)
** 

 

M1:901989.01**
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61781-61782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25143]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the 
Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting 
on November 3, 2010, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.

[[Page 61782]]

    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Wednesday, November 3, 2010--1:30 p.m. until 5 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will review the License Renewal Application and 
associated Safety Evaluation Report (SER) with open items for Hope 
Creek. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions 
with representatives of the NRC staff, Public Service Enterprise Group 
(PSEG) Nuclear LLC, and other interested persons regarding this matter. 
The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and 
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, 
for deliberation by the Full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), 
Michael Benson (Telephone 301-415-6396 or e-mail 
[email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so 
that appropriate arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of 
each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO 30 minutes 
before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each 
presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. 
If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, 
presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each 
presentation at least 30 minutes before the meeting. Electronic 
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting 
that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and 
participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register 
on October 14, 2009 (74 FR 58268-58269).
    Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on 
the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs. 
Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the agenda, 
whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time 
allotted to present oral statements can be obtained from the website 
cited above or by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of 
the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by 
the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, 
persons planning to attend should check with these references if such 
rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    Dated: September 30, 2010.
Cayetano Santos,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch A, Advisory Committee on Reactor 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2010-25143 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6970

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY HOUSTON, III, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-155, CA-97-1083-AM) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Houston, III, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Margaret Flint, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Houston , Nos. CR-96-155; CA-97-1083-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 28, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED