alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (logo) WELLS   

           FARGO | Corporate Trust Services

 

MAC R1204-010

9062 Old Annapolis Rd

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel: 410 884-2000

Fax: 410 715 2380

  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.

c/o Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

375 Park Avenue 2nd floor

MAC J0127-023

New York, NY 10152-023

 

RE:  Annual Statement of Compliance

 

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and Paying Agent for the JL Holdings - Burger King Portfolio – 90 Loan Combination (in such capacities, “Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the “reporting period”):

 

 

A review of Wells Fargo’s activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the “Servicing Agreement(s)”) has been made under my supervision; and

 

To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule B.

 

 

 

March 4, 2015

 

 

/s/  Brian Smith

Brian Smith

Vice President

 

 

To:  Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.

 

Schedule A

 

 

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2014 by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC, Operating Advisor, relating to the Series COMM 2014-LC15 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, relating to the JL Holdings - Burger King Portfolio – 90 Loan Combination, a pari passu portion of which is included in the Series WFRBS 2014-LC16  Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.

 

 

 

To:  Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.

Schedule B

 

 

Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

 

Not Applicable
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals2975730-APR-201209:43 AM
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Spark Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2014 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Stephen W. Webster, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to his
knowledge:



| | (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: March 25, 2015 |  | By: |  | /s/ Stephen W. Webster       
|                     |  |     |  | Stephen W. Webster           
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                     |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40888

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS EMILIO SANTIAGO-SIFUENTES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-00-CR-235-1

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

April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Emilio Santiago-Sifuentes (“Santiago”) appeals his

guilty-plea conviction and 70-month prison sentence for illegal

reentry into the United States after having been previously 

convicted and deported for the “aggravated felony” of possession

with intent to distribute cocaine. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(b)(2) and

1101(a)(43)(C). Santiago contends that his indictment was

defective because it did not allege his prior-felony conviction

and because it did not allege any general intent.
No. 00-40888

-2-

Santiago concedes that, under Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), a prior felony is a sentencing

factor and not an element of the offense that must be alleged in

an indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He

raises the issue only to preserve it for possible Supreme Court

review. Because Almendarez-Torres remains controlling authority,

Santiago is not entitled to relief on the prior-conviction issue.

Santiago contends that his indictment should have been

dismissed because it failed to allege any general intent to enter

the United States. Santiago did not challenge the indictment in

the district court; therefore, it is construed in favor of

validity unless it was so defective that, by any reasonable

construction, it failed to charge the offense of conviction. 

United States v. Threadgill, 172 F.3d 357, 373 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 528 U.S. 871 (1999). Santiago’s indictment “fairly

imported that his reentry was a voluntary act” and satisfied the

constitutional requirements of a valid indictment. United States

v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 236, 239 & n.13 (5th Cir. 2000).

Santiago’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, D. Jamie Macdonald, certify
that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of INC Research Holdings, Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 14, 2016



/s/ D. Jamie MacdonaldD. Jamie MacdonaldChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF CAPSTONE CAPITAL CORPORATION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         814,363
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,030,730  
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,032,024
<PP&E>                                     433,976,941
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,431,069
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             597,204,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,891,202
<BONDS>                                     73,270,832
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,000
<COMMON>                                        16,495
<OTHER-SE>                                 357,977,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               597,204,710
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,617,684
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,620,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,386,861
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             19,997,462
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         19,997,462
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                19,997,462
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

                In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endingOctober 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert B. Goergen, Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

                (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except for the mattersset forth in Part II — Item 5 of this Quarterly Report; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert B. Goergen                |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert B. Goergen                    |   |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   | December 10, 2004                    |   |

 

 

Thiscertification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject tothe knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

 

----
Exhibit 99.1





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 Quarterly Report of Merix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 24, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Mark R. Hollinger, Chief Executive 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:





|(1) |  | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|(2) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Dated: October 7, 2002





/s/    MARK R. HOLLINGERMark R. Hollinger Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25519]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-130-000; PR10-131-000; PR10-132-000; PR10-133-000; 
PR10-134-000; PR10-135-000; PR10-136-000 (Not Consolidated)]


Rocky Mountain Natural Gas LLC; KeySpan Gas East Corporation; 
ECOP Gas Company, LLC; MGTC, Inc; Hill-Lake Gas Storage, LLC; Southern 
California Gas Company; ETC Katy Pipeline, Ltd.; Notice of Baseline 
Filings

October 4, 2010.
    Take notice that on September 30, 2010, and October 1, 2010, 
respectively the applicants listed above submitted their baseline 
filing of its Statement of Operating Conditions for services provided 
under section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or 
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing 
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the 
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#662023342529080a0f080335131616091412260003140548010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b4d4e594844656762656e587e7b7b64797f4b6d6e7968256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Friday, October 15, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25519 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1354
WARREN A. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF GEORGIA; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-05-315-PJM) Submitted: May 25, 2005 Decided: June 8, 2005 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren A. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Warren A. Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order transferring his consolidated civil action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (2000). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Taylor seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See In re Carefirst of Md., Inc. , 305 F.3d 253, 257 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny as moot Taylor’s motions for a statement in lieu of transcript, to submit the case on the brief, to expedite his appeal, and for a stay of the judgment pending appeal, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2575]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General shall, prior to 
issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a 
controlled substance in schedule I or II, and prior to issuing a 
regulation under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2), authorizing the importation of 
such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the 
bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
    Therefore, in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice 
that on April 3, 2009, Wildlife Laboratories, 1401 Duff Drive, Suite 
400, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524, made application by renewal to the 
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer 
of Etorphine Hydrochloride (9059), a basic class of controlled 
substance listed in schedule II.
    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for 
sale to its customers.
    Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, 
registered with DEA to manufacture such basic class of controlled 
substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the 
proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request 
for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43, and in 
such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than March 8, 2010.
    This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and 
independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), 
(d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the 
Federal Register on September 23, 1975, (40 FR 43745-46), all 
applicants for registration to import a basic class of any controlled 
substance in schedule I or II are, and will continue to be, required to 
demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion 
Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, that the requirements for 
such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 
21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are satisfied.

    Dated: January 27, 2010.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-2575 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### Raleigh LANDRY, et al. v. AVONDALE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.

No. 2011-CC-2618.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re John Crane 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-1189.

Denied.

VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.
585 A.2d 349

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RODNEY McLEAN.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 23.1 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-78285, 333-85559 and 333-87272) and in the Registration Statementon Form S-3 (No. 333-78285), of NSTAR of our report dated February 18, 2005 relating to the financial statements, the financial statement schedules, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting andthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

February 18, 2005
584 A.2d 216

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN RILEY.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Henry Leon SARPY, et al. v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al.

No. 2011-CC-0884.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

In re Exxon Mobil Corporation et al.; Meridian Resource & Exploration LLC;— *1016Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 71,789; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 10-C-1084, 10-C-1079.

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7702

JERRY ROSS BRAZELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FLORA BOYD, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner for South

Carolina Department of Corrections,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District

Judge. (CA-93-2969-4-2BD)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: September 30, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Ross Brazell, Appellant Pro Se. E. Meredith Manning,

ROBINSON, MCFADDEN & MOORE, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brazell v. Boyd,

No. CA-93-2969-4-2BD (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 1995). 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