alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 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 Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2014-1 (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 | Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 5 | All of 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. |

|                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                               |  |
| /s/ Ryan C. Farris                                            |   |
|                                                          |
| Ryan C. Farris                                                |
| President, Ally Auto Assets LLC, as Depositor                 |
| (Senior Officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
857 A.2d 671

#### PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, Respondent/Appellee, v. HARRY’S HOLIDAY PARK LOUNGE, INC., Petitioner/Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 13, 2003.

*538
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of January, 2003, the order dated December 17, 2002 in reference to 446 WAL 2002 granting the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby rescinded. The appeal docket No. 81 WAP 2002 is hereby dismissed as Moot.
NUMBER 13-20-00537-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JOHNNY GONZALEZ, Appellant,

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 347th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court because a reporter’s record has not been timely 

filed in this matter. The reporter’s record was originally due to be filed on February 1, 

2021. On May 24, 2021, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant’s newly appointed 

counsel that the court reporter, Sharon Rodriguez, informed the court that appellant has 
2

failed to request the reporter’s record. To date, the reporter’s record has not been 

received nor has a response from appellant’s counsel.

Accordingly, the Court abates and remands this cause to the trial court for further 

proceedings. The trial court shall make appropriate findings under Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure 34.6(f) and 35.3, if necessary. Otherwise, the trial court shall 

determine what steps are necessary to ensure the prompt preparation of a reporter's 

record and shall enter any orders required to avoid further delay and to preserve the 

parties’ rights. 

The trial court shall prepare and file its findings and orders and cause them to be 

included in a supplemental clerk's record which should be submitted to the Clerk of this 

Court within thirty days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM 

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

7th day of July, 2021.
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

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

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of June1, 2014 by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation asDepositor, KeyBank National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association asTrustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator,Paying Agent and Custodian and Situs Holdings, LLC as Operating Advisorrelating to the Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, COMM2014-CCRE18 Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates **(COMM2014-CCRE18)**

 

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

 

1.            All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.            A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicerfor the period of January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “ReportingPeriod”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has beenconducted under my supervision.

 

3.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/AdamSinger                                 Date: March 1, 2017

                       Adam Singer, Managing Director
#### Juan DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNEIL, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D09-4782.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 5, 2010.

Juan Delgado, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and C. Ian Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED as moot.

DAVIS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7243 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.7243

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
To amend Public Law 115-217 to change the address of the postal facility 
  designated by such Public Law in honor of Sergeant First Class Alwyn 
                 Crendall Cashe, 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. AMENDMENT TO CHANGE ADDRESS OF POSTAL FACILITY DESIGNATED BY 
PUBLIC LAW 115-217.
    In section 1(a) of Public Law 115-217, strike ``567 East Franklin 
Street'' and insert ``83 Geneva Drive''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Raleigh LANDRY, et al. v. AVONDALE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.

No. 2011-CC-2589.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Steel Grip Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. H, No. 02-5103; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1183.

Denied.

VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.
Exhibit 10.47


 


January 9,
2009


 


Mr. Anthony Hicks


Otter Tail Ag Enterprises,
LLC


24096 170th Ave.


Fergus Falls, MN 56537-7518


 


RE: Audit Compliance Waiver


 


Dear Mr. Hicks:


 


Please be advised that MMCDC
New Markets Fund II, LLC (NMF) has approved your request to provide the
following limited waiver.


 


NMF hereby acknowledges its
waiver of the requirement that OTAE furnish to NMF certain audited financial
statements within ninety (90) days of the end of OTAE’s 2008 fiscal year, as
required under the loan agreement. OTAE’s failure to comply with the specific
covenant indicated above on the specific dates indicated above shall not be
deemed by NMF to be an Event of Default under the terms of the Loan Agreement
through October 1, 2009.


 


Except as expressly provided
herein, nothing in this letter constitutes a (i) waiver of any default,
Event of Default, or breach of covenants or agreements by OTAE under the Loan
Agreement or the other Loan Documents; or (ii) waiver of any rights or
remedies of NMF under the Master Loan Agreement or the other Loan Documents.


 


If there are any questions
please give me a call.


 


Sincerely,


 


	
  MMCDC New Markets Fund II,
  LLC

  	
   

  
	
  By: Midwest Minnesota
  Community

  	
   

  
	
  Development Corporation,

  	
   

  
	
  Its Managing Member

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  s/s Arlen Kangas

  	
   

  
	
  Arlen Kangas, President
#### STATE ex rel. Eugene BAKER v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2796.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Baker, Eugene; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 25060; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00731.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

KNOLL, J., recused.
#### In re Kirstin J. RAMSAY.

No. 2009-OB-0004.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 2011.

ORDER

FOR THE COURT.

Considering the “Termination of Conditional Admission” filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that the probationary period imposed by this court in *In re:*Ramsay, 09-0004 (La.1/14/09), 998 So.2d 691, be and hereby is terminated, as the court finds petitioner has successfully complied with all terms of probation.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 8th day of February, 2011.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and

Dissenting Opinions filed October 14 , 2021

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00374

- CV

IN RE DARRELL ARCHER , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Co u nty Civil C ourt a t Law No

. 4

Harris County, Texas

Tr ial Court Cau se No. 1145555



### MEMORANDUM MAJORITY OPINION

On July 8, 2021 , relator Darrell Archer filed a petition for writ of m andamus

in this Court , follow ed by an amended petition for writ of mandamus filed July 27,

202 1

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see a lso Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the

amended petition, relator asks this Court to c ompe l the Honorable Lesley Briones,

presiding judge of the Co unty Civil C ourt at Law No

. 4 of Harris County

, to vacate2

the court ’ s Jun e 22, 2021, order granting plaintiffs’ m otion to compel discovery in

aid of judgment.

Re lator ha s not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny r elator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus

.

/s/ Kevin Jewe l l

Justice

Panel c onsists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Spain. (Spain, J. , dissenting).
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of United Microelectronics Corporation, or the Company, on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, or the Report, I, Chitung Liu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                 
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 18, 2014
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ Chitung Liu                                 
|                     |  | Name: Chitung Liu Title: Chief Financial
Officer



|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charissa Tariel WILLIAMS.

No. 2011-K-2676.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

In re Williams, Charissa Tariel; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 01-08-0197; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0576.

Denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 09-cv-02990-WYD-MEH

WILDEARTH GUARDIANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEN SALAZAR, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of the Interior,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 14, 2010.

The Federal Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Temporarily Stay All Proceedings [filed

April 12, 2010; docket #38] is granted. All proceedings in this matter are hereby stayed, pending

a decision on the Federal Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Actions by the Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation. The parties shall file a status report within five business days upon receipt

of the Judicial Panel’s decision. 

The Status Conference scheduled for May 5, 2010, is hereby vacated.
# C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

A T L A N T A

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l s h e re b y p a sse s t h e f o l l o w i n g o rd e r:

A 1 9 A 0 3 9 7

. V

I N C E N T ST E W

A R T W H IT A K E R v

. T H E ST A T E

.

A f t e r a b e n c h t

r i a l

, V i n c e n t St e w a

r t W h i t a k e r w a s c o n v i c t e d o f f

a m i l y v i o l e n c e

si m p l e b a t t e r y a n d t h r e e c o u n t s o f c r u e l t

y t o c h i l d r e n

. W

h i t a k e r f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r

n e w t r i a l

, a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t

h e m o t i o n a s t o t h e si m

p l e b a t t e r y c h a r g e b u t

g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n a s t o t

h e r e m a i n i n g c o u n t s. W

h i t a k e r t h e r e a f t e r f i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l

. W e

, h o w e v e r

, l a c k j u r i sd i c t i o n

.

T h e o r d e r g

r a n t i n g i n p a

r t a n d d e n y i n g i n p a

r t t h e m o t i o n f

o r n e w t r i a l i s n o t

a f i n a l j u d g m e n t w i t h i n t

h e m e a n i n g o f O C G

A § 5

- 6

- 3 4 ( a ) ( 1 )

. M

TW I n v e st m e n t

C o m p a n y v

. A l c o v y P r o p e rt i e s

, I n c

. , 2 2 3 G a

. A

p p

. 2 3 0

, 2 3 1 ( 4 4 7 SE

2 d 3 9 5 ) ( 1 9 9 6 ) ;

R o c k d a l e A w n i n g & c

. C

o

. v

. K e r b o w
, 2 1 0 G a

. A

p p

. 1 1 9

, 1 2 1 ( 2 ) ( 4 3 5 SE 2 d 6 1 9 )

( 1 9 9 3 )

. T h e o r d e r i s t

h u s i n t e r l o c u t o r y
, a

n d t h e a p p e a l f r o m su c h a

n o r d e r r e q u i r e s

c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r y a

p p e a l p r o c e d u r e o f O C G

A § 5

- 6

- 3 4 ( b )

. B e c a

u se

W h i t a k e r f a i l e d t o f o l l o w t h i s p r o c e d u r e

, t

h i s C o u r t l a c k s j u r i sd i c t i o n t o c o n si d e r h i s

a p p e a l

, w h i c h i s h e r e b y D I SM I SSE D

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t l a n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t

h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. October 04, 2018

10/04/2018
No. 8131.

#### Beatty *v.*Blair.

Filed Nov. 19, 1884.

Supreme *Court.*— Motion *to*Dismiss.— *Bill of Exceptions.*— Practice.—No question is presented for the decision of the Supreme Court, upon the dismissal by the trial court of a motion to offset judgments, unless the motion has been made part of the record by bill of exceptions or order of court.

From the Shelby Circuit Court.

*R. Hill,*for appellant.

*N. R. Keyes,*for appellee.

Hammond, J.

The appellee recovered a judgment against the appellant before a justice of . the peace in Bartholomew county for $102.85. The appellant appealed to the circuit court of that county, from which the venue was changed to the court below. On trial and verdict of the jury the appellee recovered judgment against the appellant for $50. On account of the reduction of more than $5 of the judgment rendered before the justice, the appellant had judgment for his costs in the circuit court. He then moved, as it appears from the order-book entries, to have his judgment for costs, to the extent thereof, set off against the appellee’s judgment. This motion was dismissed. The appellant excepted, and was allowed sixty days in which to file a bill of exceptions. It was never filed. The dismissal of the appellant’s said motion is his ground of complaint in this court. But as his motion and the grounds for its dismissal are not part of the record by bill of exceptions or order of court, no question is presented for our decision, and the judgment of the court below will have to be affirmed.

Affirmed, at appellant’s costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Cecil GARDNER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4344.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 28, 2000.

Decided Jan. 3, 2001.

*109Terence Lee Taylor, Cannon & Taylor, L.L.P., Greenville, NC, for appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Felice McConnell Cor-pening, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Cecil Gardner, Jr., appeals his convictions after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit larceny of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 371 (West 2000); larceny of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(u) (West 2000), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994); possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(j) (West 2000), 18 U.S.C. § 2; and possession of firearms by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000). He contends that the district court abused its discretion in admitting testimony of his resistance to arrest because it was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. *See*Fed.R.Evid. 401, 403. We affirm.

After reviewing the trial testimony, we find that the testimony regarding Gardner’s behavior at arrest is relevant to consciousness of guilt. *See*Fed.R.Evid. 401; *United States v. Clark,*45 F.3d 1247, 1250 (8th Cir.1995) (recognizing that “[i]t is universally conceded today that the fact of an accused’s flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself’) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, the testimony is not so prejudicial as to warrant exclusion under Rule 403. *See United States v. Van Metre,*150 F.Sd 339, 351 (4th Cir.1998) (interpreting Rule 403 to require exclusion of evidence “ ‘only in those instances where the trial judge believes that there is a genuine risk that the emotions of the jury will be excited to irrational behavior, and that this risk is disproportionate to the probative value of the offered evidence’ ”) (quoting *United States v. Powers,*59 F.3d 1460, 1467 (4th Cir.1995)). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony regarding Gardner’s behavior at arrest.**See United States v. Hassouneh,*199 F.3d 175, 183 (4th Cir.2000) (stating standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm Gardner’s convictions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be*110fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

 Even assuming, as Gardner suggests, that the district court improperly admitted testimony regarding his behavior at arrest, we find that any error was harmless. *See United States v. Ince,*21 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir.1994) (providing standard).
#### STATE ex rel. Lawrence E. MATTHEWS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-OK-1263.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

In re Matthews, Lawrence; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. CR-781-08; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01450.

Denied. The result is correct.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 30, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-16137

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00477-CR-CC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER ALVAREZ-LOPEZ,

a.k.a. Gotti,

a.k.a. Carlos,

a.k.a. Tio,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(June 30, 2009)

Before BLACK, BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
E. Vaughn Dunnigan, appointed counsel for Javier Alvarez-Lopez, has filed

a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Alvarez-Lopez’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

2
Exhibit 15.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-199688) of ReWalk Robotics Ltd. of our report dated February 27, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of ReWalk Robotics Ltd. and its subsidiaries included in the annual report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2014, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





/s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer
 KOST, FORER, GABBAY & KASIERER
 A Member of Ernst & Young Global
 
 Tel Aviv, Israel
 February 27, 2015