alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit_10-1.htm


    
      EXHIBIT
10.1

       

       

      2009
Base Salaries and Target Discretionary Bonuses

       

      
        	
                Officer

              	
                Position

              	
                Maximum

                Base
      Salary

              	
                Target
      Cash

                Discretionary
      Bonus

              	
                Target
      Equity 

                Discretionary
      Bonus

              
	
                 

                Shane
      Evangelist

              	
                Chief
      Executive Officer

              	
                $368,000

              	
                $147,000

              	92,000
    shares
	
                Aaron
      Coleman

              	
                Executive
      Vice President of Operations and Chief
      Information Officer

              	
                $263,000

              	
                $131,000

              	
                 —

              
	
                Houman
      Akhavan

              	
                Vice
      President of Marketing

              	
                $250,000

              	
                $91,000

              	
                 —
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

**2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of May1, 2014 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as General Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB as NCBMaster Servicer, NCB, FSB as Co-op Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and asCustodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor and Wilmington Trust,National Association as Trustee relating to the WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust2014-C20, Commercial Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2014-C20 (**WFRBS 2014-C20**)

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1. All servicing activitiesand performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2. A review of the servicingactivities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1,2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordancewith the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligationsunder the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all materialrespects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfillany such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature andstatus thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

 

Date:  March 1, 2017
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in
his/her capacity as an

officer of Variflex, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

to the
best of his knowledge,:



the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for
the period

ended April 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of

Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and results of

operations of the Company.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: June 8, 2004
|                    | 
|By:                 |  | /s/ Raymond H. Losi II 
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                   
|Dated: June 8, 2004
|                    | 
|By:                 |  | /s/ Petar Katurich     
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1
                      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, James J. Ling, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Empiric Energy, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my  knowledge,  the  consolidated  financial  statements,  and other
financial  information included in this quarterly 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  quarterly
report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) (Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions.)

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; and

d) 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 the  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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation
of internal  controls 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 controls; and

Date:  December 10, 2003 - Amended

By:   /s/  James J. Ling
      -----------------------
      James J. Ling
      Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7494** 

JOSE HERNANDEZ , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. JOHN R. OWEN , Respondent

– Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Car olina , at Florence
. Camero n McGowan Currie , District Judge. ( 4:10

- cv - 02069

- CMC )

Submitted : April 28, 2011 Decided: May 25, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Jose Hernandez, Ap pellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jose Hernandez , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denyin g relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hernandez v. Owen , No. 4:10

- cv - 02069

- CMC (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2010) . 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.
AFFIRMED
Order entered April 30, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00248-CR

CARLOS DANIEL PADILLA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-59454-U

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

On December 28, 2018, we ordered the trial court to hold a hearing on why appellant’s 

brief had not been filed. We sent a February 15, 2019 letter asking the trial court about the status 

of the hearing. On March 22, 2019, the trial court held a hearing; those findings of facts and 

recommendations were filed with this Court on April 29, 2019, over one month later.

We ADOPT the trial court’s findings that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal and 

that retained counsel Matthew Scott Pillado has not abandoned the appeal. The trial court 

recommended that retained counsel be given an additional twenty-one days in which to file the 

brief; twenty-one days from the date of the trial court’s order would have been April 12, 2019. 

To date, no brief has been filed, and Mr. Pillado has not communicated with the Court.
We therefore ORDER retained counsel Matthew Scott Pillado to file appellant’s brief 

BY 5:00 P.M. ON MAY 10, 2019. Mr. Pillado is cautioned that the Court will not entertain any 

further motions from him for any extensions of time in this case. If Mr. Pillado does not file a 

brief by 5:00 p.m. on May 10, 2019, the Court will initiate contempt proceedings against him for 

the failure and refusal to obey the Court’s order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(4). The Court may 

also take such other actions as may be appropriate, including filing a grievance against Mr. 

Matthew Scott Pillado and referring this matter to the State Bar of Texas Commission for 

Lawyer Discipline for further proceedings.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Matthew Scott Pillado 

electronically as well as by certified mail at his address as shown in our records. We also 

DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Stephanie Mitchell, Presiding 

Judge, 291st Judicial District Court; to the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office; and to 

Carlos Daniel Padilla, TDCJ# 02186374, Lychner Unit, 2350 Atascocita Road, Humble, TX 

77396.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
1The HONORABLE RICHARD G. KOPF, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1464

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Nebraska. 

Michael A. Ealey, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: July 26, 2000

 Filed: July 31, 2000

___________

Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Ealey pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2113(a). At sentencing, he objected to his designation as a career offender, arguing

that one of his prior felony convictions--burglary of a commercial building--should not

be considered a crime of violence for the purposes of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2 (1998). The district court1 overruled Ealey’s objection
-2-

and imposed a sentence of 121 months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and

restitution. Ealey appeals, again challenging his career-offender status.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we determine that Ealey was properly

designated a career offender. He did not contest the presentence report’s (PSR)

findings that he was over the age of 18, that the instant offense was a crime of violence,

and that he had two prior felony convictions. See § 4B1.1; Fed. R. Crim. P.

32(b)(6)(D) (district court may accept unobjected-to portions of PSR as findings of

fact). We reiterate our prior holding that commercial burglaries constitute crimes of

violence for the purposes of §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2. See United States v. Hascall, 76

F.3d 902, 904 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 948 (1996). Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Benson, Appellant.

[775 NYS2d 694]

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered December 17, 2002. The judgment revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal from the judgment insofar as it imposes sentence be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Because defendant failed to move to withdraw his admission to a violation of probation or to vacate the judgment of conviction, he has failed to preserve for our review his contention that his admission was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered *(see People v Sawinski,*294 AD2d 667, 668 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 701 [2002]; *People v Viruet,*288 AD2d 407 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 710 [2002]; *People v Woods,*281 AD2d 929 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 870 [2001]). In any event, that contention is without merit. Because defendant has completed serving the sentence imposed, his contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe has been rendered moot *(see People v Parente,*4 AD3d 793 [2004]; *People v James,*269 AD2d 845, 846 [2000]; *People v Griffin,*239 AD2d 936 [1997]). We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it does not require reversal. Present—Pigott, Jr., EJ., Pine, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.
#### Raphael Marice TINSLEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-2078.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 20, 2010.

Raphael Marice Tinsley, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Raphael Marice Tinsley seeks a belated appeal although, in fact, his petition raises two different claims. In the first, he contends that he timely asked his trial counsel to appeal judgment and sentence. That claim is time-barred under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(4)(A) and we deny it as such.

Petitioner also contends that one or more attorneys agreed to file a motion for postconviction relief on his behalf and their failure to do so caused him to miss the time limitations set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b). Petitioner’s remedy regarding this claim is to file a motion for postconviction relief so stating in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(3). The petition, to the extent it seeks such relief, is therefore dismissed without prejudice to Tinsley’s right to file a motion in circuit court.

PETITION DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.

WOLF, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ, concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6892]

# AGENCY:

Department of State.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

A determination has been made, pursuant to Section 6 of Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, as amended, to remove nonproliferation measures on one Russian entity.

# DATES:

Effective Date: February 4, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pamela K. Durham, Office of Missile Threat Reduction, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State (202-647-4930).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Pursuant to the authorities vested in the President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701*et seq.*) (“IEEPA”), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601*et seq.*), the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751*et seq.*), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and Section 6 of Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, as amended, a determination was made on January 26, 2010, that it is in the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States to remove the restrictions imposed pursuant to Sections 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d) of the Executive Order on the following Russian entity, its sub-units and successors:                

1. Baltic State Technical University.

                    These restrictions were imposed on July 30, 1998 (                    *see*63 FR 42089).                

Dated: January 29, 2010.

C.S. Eliot Kang,

Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation.

[FR Doc. 2010-2418 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-27-P
#### Tracie RUSSELL, Individually, and on Behalf of the Minor Child, Garland Russell v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, the City of Covington and ABC Insurance Company.

No. 2011-CC-1820.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re St. Tammany Parish School Board; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2008-13911; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0855.

Granted and remanded to court of appeal for briefing, argument, and opinion.

WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.
#### Steven ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D11-550.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 15, 2011.

Steven Roberts, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Steven Roberts appeals the summary denial of his motion for additional jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Mr. Roberts claimed that he is entitled to an additional twenty-nine days of jail credit in case number 10-CF-02670.

On September 14, 2010, Mr. Roberts was sentenced in case number 10-CF-02670 to concurrent terms of thirty months’ imprisonment and twenty-four months’ probation and awarded 222 days of jail credit. Mr. Roberts subsequently filed this motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a), alleging that he should have been awarded a total of 251 days of jail credit. In its order, the postconviction court noted that Mr. Roberts is entitled to credit against each sentence only for the time actually spent in jail on the charge leading to that sentence. *See White v. State,*940 So.2d 1165, 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); *Keene v. State,*500 So.2d 592, 593 (Fla. 2d DCA *12861986). Relying on records indicating that Mr. Roberts was charged in case number 10-CF-02670 on February 5, 2010, the postconviction court held that Mr. Roberts had received the proper amount of jail credit.

In his brief, Mr. Roberts challenges this finding by claiming that the postconviction judge, who was also the sentencing judge, misinterpreted the records. In support of this argument, Mr. Roberts points out that the record indicates that he was taken into custody on January 7, 2010, and remained there until sentencing. Furthermore, he claims that this arrest was for offenses that were later enhanced or amended to create case number 10-CF-02670. Therefore, even if he was not officially charged in that case until February 5, 2010, he was taken into custody on the underlying offenses nearly a month earlier. Mr. Roberts correctly argues that custody of a defendant should be considered from the date of his initial arrest. *See Bronk v. State,*25 So.3d 701, 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Finally, the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office report supports Mr. Roberts’ assertions. The report lists a total of thirteen charges brought against Mr. Roberts on January 7, 2010, including charge four, which was incorporated into case number 10-CF-02670.

Due to the contradictory nature of the records in this case, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Mr. Roberts’ claims or grant Mr. Roberts an additional twenty-nine days of jail credit in case number 10-CF-02670.

Reversed and remanded.

WHATLEY, LaROSE, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 15.1







Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference
in Registration Statement No. 333-198812 on Form S-8 and No. 333-207235 on Form F-3 of Affimed N.V. of our report dated March 16,
2016, with respect to the consolidated statement of financial position of Affimed N.V. as of December 31, 2015 and December 31,
2014, and the related consolidated statements of comprehensive loss, cash flows and changes in equity for each of the years in
the threeyear period ended December 31, 2015, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Affimed N.V for the year
ended December 31, 2015.





/s/ KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft



Leipzig, Germany



March 29, 2016
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David G. SARPY.

No. 2011-KO-0046.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

In re Sarpy, David G.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 13323; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-700.

Denied.
#### Charles CUTLER v. Beth McGEE, et al.

No. 2010-C-1879.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Board of Probation & Parole; Louisiana State of; McGee, Beth et al.; Public Safety and Corrections, Department of; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2008-3397; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1290.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Marcus EVANS.

No. 2010-K-1321.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

*884In re Evans, Marcus; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 07-07-0393; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0013.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 21.1

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

Staff Acquisition, Inc.

Staff Insurance, Inc.

Staff Leasing, L.P.

Staff Leasing II, L.P.

Staff Leasing III, L.P.

Staff Leasing IV, L.P.

Staff Leasing V, L.P.

Staff Leasing of Georgia, L.P.

Staff Leasing of Georgia II, L.P.

Staff Leasing of Georgia III, L.P.

Staff Leasing of Taxas, L.P.

Staff Leasing of Texas II, L.P.