alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10653 Conference Calendar

__________________ JAMES R. FISHER, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CV-01185-R
- - - - - - - - - - February 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James R. Fisher appeals from the district court's order denying habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argues that he was "in custody" during the time he was awaiting sentencing on his federal conviction because he was subject to restraints not shared by the public generally. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and find no reversible error. Because Fisher challenges the legality of his conviction,No. 95-10653 -2- any claims that arose at or prior to sentencing and that cannot be brought on direct appeal must be addressed in a subsequent § 2255 motion. See United States v. Gabor , 905 F.2d 76, 77 (5th Cir. 1990). AFFIRMED.
584 A.2d 248

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT JONES.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 197

#### IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD J. GREENBERG, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

January 31, 1991.

ORDER

RICHARD J. GREENBERG of MONTCLAIR, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1972, having tendered his consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RICHARD J. GREENBERG is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with disbarred attorneys.
Exhibit 12.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Thomas P. Soloway, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Ascendis Pharma A/S (the Company);

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Intentionally omitted]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company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
Companys internal control over financial reporting.



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|Date:  |  | March 26, 2015         
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Thomas P. Soloway  
|Name:  |  | Thomas P. Soloway      
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
584 A.2d 254

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN WILLIAM BROWN.

June 26, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 352

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT E. RIVERS.

July 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
No. 99-40801

-1-

 

* 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. 99-40801

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WESLEY ERON WHITE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:98-CR-141-1

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

February 17, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wesley Eron White appeals the sentence imposed by the

district court upon White’s guilty-plea conviction of mailing

nonmailable material in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461. White

argues that the district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1

to enhance his sentence on account of obstruction of justice.

A district court’s finding that a defendant has obstructed

justice under § 3C1.1 is a factual finding reviewed for clear

error. United States v. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir. 

1994). Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the

district court did not err in enhancing White’s sentence either
No. 99-40801

-2-

because White provided a materially false statement to postal

investigators or because White provided materially false

information to the probation officer conducting the presentence

investigation. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s

judgment.

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Conrado ACOSTA, aka John Doe, aka Conrado Acosta Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50127.

D.C. No. CR-99-00334-R-4.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 8, 2001.

Decided Jan. 11, 2001.

*709Before TROTT, THOMAS and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM1

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here. We affirm the sentence imposed by the district court for the following reasons:

1. The district judge’s statements in Acosta’s sentencing hearing regarding whether the departure was available reveal that the judge recognized he had discretion to grant the departure and considered doing so, but chose not to because of his view of Acosta’s involvement in drug trafficking over many years. This decision is not reviewable on appeal. *United States v. Belden,*957 F.2d 671, 676 (9th Cir.1992).

2. Acosta also argues that the district court erred in applying a 2-level gun enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b). The base offense level directed by the career offender guideline for the offense to which Acosta pled guilty is higher than the total offense level that would otherwise have applied. *See*U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1; 21 U.S.C. § 846; 21 U.S.C. § 841. The gun enhancement therefore had no effect on Acosta’s sentence, and we need not decide whether the district court erred in applying it.

AFFIRMED.

1

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint                               ( print page 62632)                            Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.                    

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, November 23, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Gilbert at 1-888-912-1227 or (515) 564-6638.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Tuesday, November 23, 2010, at 3 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Susan Gilbert. For more information please contact Ms. Gilbert at 1-888-912-1227 or (515) 564-6638 or write: TAP Office, 210 Walnut Street, Stop 5115, Des Moines, IA 50309 or contact us at the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*.                

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: October 4, 2010.

Shawn F. Collins,

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2010-25456 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
584 A.2d 205

#### RUTH BETSKER AND CHARLES BETSKER v. MISS SANDRA’S SCHOOL OF DANCE, ET AL.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

May 27, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 Honorable Inge P. Johnson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, *

sitting by designation.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_____________________________

No. 06-14893

_____________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00025 CV-3

CLIVE BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WARDEN MICHAEL PUGH,

FNU MONTFORD,

H.S. Administrator,

FNU ROY, Physician,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

___________________________

(May 27, 2008)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, PRYOR, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON,*

District Judge.
2

PER CURIAM:

The judgment is AFFIRMED. See Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249 (11th

Cir. 2008).
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust ServicesMAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. 

383 Madison Avenue 31st Floor, 

New York, NY 10179

 

RE:  Annual Statement of Compliance

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator for the 200 West Monroe 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)     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

 

(b)     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 20, 2015

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

Brian Smith

Vice President

 

 

 

To:  J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

Schedule A

 

 

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

 

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June  1, 2014 by and among J.P. MORGAN CHASE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, TORCHLIGHT LOAN SERVICES, LLC, as Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Trustee, and PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor relating to the series JPM  2014-C20 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates relating to 200 West Monroe Loan Combination, a  pari passu portion of which is included in the series JPM 2014-C21 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.

 

 

 

 

| To:  J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp | Schedule B |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------|

 

 

Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

 

Not Applicable
585 A.2d 377

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HUMBERTO POSSO.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
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.                  

###### Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

# DATE AND TIME:

Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.

# PLACE:

Commission Meeting Room on the First Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 131 “M” Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507.

# STATUS:

The meeting will be open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

## Open Session

1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and

2. Employer Use of Credit History as a Screening Tool.

# Note:

                        In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and voting. Seating is limited and it is suggested that visitors arrive 30 minutes before the meeting in order to be processed through security and escorted to the meeting room. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the                         **Federal Register**                        , the Commission also provides a recorded announcement a full week in advance on future Commission sessions.)                    

                        Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign language interpretation and Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) services at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the voice and TTY numbers listed above.                         *Contact Person for More Information:*                         Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer on (202) 663-4070.                    

This Notice issued October 8, 2010.

Stephen Llewellyn,

Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 2010-25869 Filed 10-8-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
No. 14,675.

#### The Harrisburg Car Manufacturing Company *v.*Sloan.

*Parties.*— Contract.—Allegation *of Non-Interest.*— Where a complaint upon a contract alleges that one whose name appears therein, but who did not sign the writing, has no interest in it, such person is not a necessary party.

Sale.— *Warranty.*— Damages.—Tender.—In an action for a breach of warranty it is not necessary to tender the thing bought back to the seller, but the buyer may retain it and sue for damages.

*Same.*— Trial *by Jury.*— An action for damages for a breach of warranty is not of right triable by the court, and a jury may be called.

*Evidence.*— Letters *between Parties.*— Attorney *may be Compelled to*Produce.— An attorney who has possession of a letter which passed between litigants may be compelled to produce it; and if it is relevant to the controversy, it is competent evidence.

*Same.*— Contract *Concerning Different Transaction.*— A contract concerning a transaction different from the one involved in a pending action is not competent evidence.

From the Marion Circuit Court.

*D. Turpie, W. E. Niblach*and *IT. D. Pierce,*for appellant.

*H. N. Spaan,*for appellee.

Elliott, C. J.

The complaint sets forth á contract signed by the appellant and by William G. Sloan and Samuel C. Dawson. In the introductory part of the contract Jacob N, Buser is named, but the contract was not signed by him, and it is averred that he has no interest in it. As the contract was not executed by him, and as the complaint affirmatively shows that he has no interest in it, he was not a necessary party plaintiff.

The appellant’s counsel are in error in assuming that the complaint seeks a rescission of the contract, for the theory of the pleading is that there was a breach of warranty with resulting damages. It is not necessary in an action for a *157breach of warranty to tender the thing bought, back to the seller. In such a case the buyer may retain the property and maintain an action for damages. *Marsh*v. *Low,*55 Ind. 271; *Hoover*v. *Sidener,*98 Ind. 290. If the complaint sought a rescission of the contract, a very different question would be presented. *Fleetwood*v. *Dorsey Machine Co.,*95 Ind. 491.

Filed June 20, 1889;

petition for a rehearing overruled Sept. 27, 1889.

An action for damages for a breach of warranty is not of right triable by the court, and there was no error in calling a jury to try this cause.

An attorney who has possession of a letter written to a defendant by a plaintiff, may be compelled to produce it, and when produced it may be read in evidence.

Letters passing between litigants and relevant to the controversy are competent instruments of evidence.

A contract concerning a transaction different from the one involved in the pending action is not a competent instrument of evidence, and there was no error in excluding the written contract concerning a transaction different from the one out of which this controversy arose.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 31

Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-GC23 (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(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5.All 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.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC; Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc.; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; CWCapital Asset Management LLC; CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC; Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC; and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC.

Date:March 30, 2020

|  | /s/ Richard Simpson___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

CGCMT 2014-GC23 Certifications
#### STATE of Louisiana, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF FACILITY PLANNING & CONTROL v. IFINITY SURETY AGENCY, L.L.C., Benetech, L.L.C., and JRDKS Construction, L.L.C., A Joint Venture, and Benetech, L.L.C.; and JRDKS Construction, L.L.C.

No. 2010-C-2264.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 14, 2011.

In re Division of Administration; Office of Facility Planning & Control; State of Louisiana et al.; —Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 577,412; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0128.

Granted.
585 A.2d 392

#### CATHERINE LUTGEN v. CITY OF ASBURY PARK.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.