alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 33.9

 

|  |
|--|

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year ending December 31, 2019, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for Wells Fargo Bank (the “Servicer”).

National Tax Search, LLC (“NTS”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2019 and for the period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “CFR”).  NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Only servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”) are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report.  NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report.  The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTS’s TaxQ system (the “Platform Transactions”).

NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2019 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2019 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to Servicer

 

/s/ Lori D. Eshoo

Lori D. Eshoo

Executive,Operations

January 30, 2020
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-20-00604-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.M., a Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PA00201

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 19, 2021

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

Appellant A.M., Jr. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights 

to his child, A.R.M. Father’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a 

brief containing a professional evaluation of the record, concluding there are no arguable grounds 

for reversal of the termination order. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam)

(recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases). Additionally, counsel 

represents that she provided Father with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw, advised 

Father of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and informed Father how to obtain 

a copy of the record, providing him with a form motion for access to the appellate record. We 
04-20-00604-CV

- 2 -

issued an order setting a deadline for Father to file a pro se brief. However, Father did not request 

the appellate record or file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the appellate record and appointed counsel’s brief, we conclude no 

plausible grounds exist for reversal of the termination order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial 

court’s termination order. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not show good 

cause for withdrawal. See id. at 27 & n.7 (holding that counsel’s obligations in a parental 

termination case extend through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals and that withdrawal should be 

permitted by a court of appeals “only for good cause” (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 10)). 

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
#### NEW BRUNSWICK SAVINGS BANK v. PETER MARKOUSKI.

October 6, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATE
      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 of Safari Associates, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10QSB for the quarter ended in June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      & Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the
      capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:









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







2.
            The
                information contained in the Report Fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.












Dated:  August
      10, 2006




By:  */s/
      Zirk Engelbrecht*


Zirk
      Engelbrecht


Chief
      Financial Officer & Chief Executive Officer
#### ANTOINETTE YURKOW v. STEVE’S AUTO BODY AND THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY.

December 18, 1987.

Leave to appeal granted, and the order of the Appellate Division is summarily modified to permit appellant to use the *521brief she submitted on the motion for leave to appeal as her brief on the appeal.

The Court notes that the County of Camden has voluntarily agreed to pay for the preparation of the transcript on Appellant’s behalf.
Exhibit 32.2



RF MONOLITHICS, INC.



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The
undersigned, Harley E Barnes III, Chief Financial Officer of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 14th day of January, 2005.



/s/ Harley E Barnes IIIName: Harley E Barnes IIITitle: Chief Financial Officer




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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F
of Trillium Therapeutics Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31,
2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Niclas Stiernholm, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my 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.

|/s/ Niclas
      Stiernholm           | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|Niclas Stiernholm                     | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|                                      | 
|March 10, 2017                        | 

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 905 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 905

 To amend title 17, United States Code, to provide that the first sale 
  doctrine applies to any computer program that enables a machine or 
           other product to operate, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2017

  Mr. Farenthold (for himself and Mr. Polis) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 17, United States Code, to provide that the first sale 
  doctrine applies to any computer program that enables a machine or 
           other product to operate, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``You Own Devices Act''.

SEC. 2. FIRST SALE DOCTRINE AND CERTAIN COMPUTER PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 109 of title 17, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Transfer of Certain Computer Programs.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 106 or section 
        117, if a computer program enables any part of a machine or 
        other product to operate, the owner of the machine or other 
        product is entitled to transfer an authorized copy of the 
        computer program, or the right to obtain such copy, when the 
        owner sells, leases, or otherwise transfers the machine or 
        other product to another person. The right to transfer provided 
        under this subsection may not be waived by any agreement.
            ``(2) Security and error correction.--Any right to receive 
        modifications to the computer program described in paragraph 
        (1) relating in whole or in part to security or error 
        correction that applied to the owner of the machine or other 
        product described in paragraph (1) shall apply to the person to 
        whom the machine or product and the copy of the computer 
        program are transferred.
            ``(3) Treatment of unauthorized copies.--Nothing in this 
        subsection should be construed as permitting the owner of a 
        machine or other product to retain an unauthorized copy of the 
        computer program described in paragraph (1) after transferring 
        the machine or other product and the copy of the computer 
        program to another person.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to 
transfers of computer programs occurring on or after such date.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD EDWARDS.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert B.Goergen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                 The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert B. Goergen                 |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert B. Goergen                     |
|   | Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | August 4,  2004                  |

 

 

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

 

----
585 A.2d 390

#### JAMES BAKER v. JOSEPH E. BUTLER.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25963]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR11-57-001]


Lobo Pipeline Company L.P.; Notice of Baseline Filing

October 7, 2010.
    Take notice that on October 1, 2010, Lobo Pipeline Company L.P. 
submitted a revised 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#3f797a6d7c70515356515a6c4a4f4f504d4b7f595a4d5c11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ed8dbccddd1f0f2f7f0fbcdebeeeef1eceadef8fbecfdb0f9f1e8">[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 Wednesday, October 20, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25963 Filed 10-14-10; 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>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Damon McCROREY, a/k/a Rod, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4076.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 15, 2000.

Decided Jan. 10, 2001.

Michael L. Brown, Jr., Rock Hill, SC, for appellant. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Roderick Damon McCrorey pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. The district court imposed a 145-month sentence. Following the filing of a timely notice of appeal, McCrorey’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In his brief, counsel states that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raises the following issues: whether the district court (1) complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 at the plea hearing, and (2) sentenced McCrorey in contravention of law or the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not err during the plea hearing, *United States v. Damon,*191 F.3d 561, 564 n. 2 (4th Cir. 1999), or in sentencing. *See United States v. Daughtrey,*874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989).

We have examined the entire record in this case including the issues raised in McCrorey’s pro se supplemental brief, in accordance with the requirements of *An-ders,*and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm McCro-rey’s sentence and conviction. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

We grant McCrorey’s motion to decon-solidate his appeal from *United States v. Brice,*1 Fed.Appx. 186 (4th Cir.2001). 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

The court amends its opinion filed January 10, 2001, as follows:

*187On the cover sheet, section 6 — the status line is corrected to read “Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.”
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# DATE AND TIME:

 Friday, October 22, 2010; 9:30 a.m. EDT.

# PLACE:

 624 9th St., NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425.

## Meeting Agenda

This meeting is open to the public.

I. Approval of Agenda.

II. Program Planning.
      - Approval of New Black Panther Party Enforcement Report.
      - Consideration of Findings and Recommendations for Briefing Report on English-Only in the Workplace.
      - Consideration of Policy on Commissioner Statements and Rebuttals.
      - Update on Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College Admissions—Some of the discussion of this agenda item may be held in closed session.
      - Update on Clearinghouse Project.

III. State Advisory Committee Issues.
      - Kentucky SAC.
      - Maryland SAC.
      - Vermont SAC.

                    IV. Staff Director's Report.                          ( print page 63145)    

V. Announcements.

VI. Approval of Minutes of October 8 Meeting.

VII. Adjourn.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

                         Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.                         *TDD:*                         (202) 376-8116.                    

                        Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Pamela Dunston at least seven days prior to the meeting at 202-376-8105.                         *TDD:*                         (202) 376-8116.                    

Dated: October 12, 2010.

David Blackwood,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2010-26048 Filed 10-12-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P