alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Leah Nivison,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the GS MortgageSecurities Trust 2014-GC24 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland LoanServices, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNRPartners, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asTrustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,as Custodian, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor, and Berkeley PointCapital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank, as Primary Servicer.

 

 

 

Dated: March 19, 2020

 

 

/s/ Leah Nivison

 

 

Chief ExecutiveOfficer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thomas F. Kelly, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Epicor Software Corporation on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Epicor Software Corporation.



|                  |  |                                                                    
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 9, 2008 |  | /s/ Thomas F. Kelly                                                
|                  |  | Thomas F. Kelly                                                    
|                  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)

I, Michael A. Piraino, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Epicor Software Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Epicor Software Corporation.



|                  |  |     |  |                                                     
|----------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 9, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael A. Piraino                              
|                  |  |     |  | Michael A. Piraino                                  
|                  |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                  |  |     |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

 

Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the annual Report of Bemax Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Taiwo Aimasiko, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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.



Date: March 15, 2016

 

/s/ Taiwo Aimasiko

____________________________

Taiwo Aimasiko

Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26141]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XZ73


New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is 
scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Committee in November 2010 
to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive 
economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to 
the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

DATES: This meeting will be held on Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 9 
a.m.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at the Providence Biltmore, 11 
Dorrance Street, Providence, RI 02903; telephone: (401) 421-0700; fax: 
(401) 455-3050.
    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, 
New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Scallop Committee will review Framework 
22 alternatives and analyses as well as input from the Advisory Panel 
and Plan Development Team. The Committee will identify preferred 
alternatives for the Council to consider when it takes final action at 
the November 16-18 Council Meeting, including research priority 
recommendations for the 2012 Research Set-Aside program. If time 
permits, other issues may be discussed.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject 
of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to 
those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising 
after publication of this notice that require emergency action under 
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's 
intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-
0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 13, 2010.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-26141 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
# Sitemap

## April 12, 2007

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2007
- 04
- April 12, 2007

            - Cassini Significant Events — 04/04/07 – 04/10/07
#### Zafiropoulos v. Papadopoulou

*Ronald David Ashby,*for plaintiff.

*Peter J. Hart,*for defendant.

May 22, 1992

BRADLEY, J.,

Defendants appealed the order of this court allowing plaintiff a new trial. The matter had been tried by judge and jury by the Honorable Edward Lawhorne and resulted in a verdict *619in favor of plaintiff. It is the form and substance of the jury decision that compelled the new trial order.

Plaintiff was a passenger in a car driven by defendant Elena Papadopoulou, owned by her father, also a defendant, and alleged injuries when the vehicle left Route 1-95 and struck a guard rail. Plaintiff alleged medical and dental injuries; the latter, alleging a temporomandibular joint injury, was closely contested by defendants.

The jury announced their verdict, “in the amount of $11,666 of total medical bills.” When the trial judge questioned the verdict the foreman reported that it was “$11,666 of the total medical bills.” Judge Lawhorne responded, “Oh, I see. So you’ve $11,666 period out of_and that was measured against the medical bills?” The foreman answered “yes.” (N.T. November 27, 1991, at 58, 59).

Although this writer did not preside at the trial, the circumstances of the jury award in this case hardly convinces one that the jury understood and considered all of the elements of damage charged by the trial judge. While defendant argues that the jury award could be interpreted to allow pain and suffering recovery since hardly any mix of the medical bills seems to justify the $11,666 verdict, it seems that the award for the parties really indicates confusion on the part of the jury which regrettably requires a new trial.

Where an award indicates that a jury failed to follow or misunderstood the legal instruction, a new trial should be granted. *Dattola*v. *Bart,*228 Pa. 134, 135 A. 736 (1927); *Riddle*v. *Anderson,*85 Pa. Commw. 187, 481 *620A.2d 382 (1984); *Pape*v. *Short,*199 Pa. Super. 617, 186 A.2d 431 (1962).

The verdict in this case cannot be explained in any way that satisfies this court that the jury was aware of the proper legal principles to apply. A new trial was ordered.
EXHIBIT 15.1

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

AWARENESS LETTER

Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C. 20549

We are aware that our report dated July 2, 2008 on our review of the interim consolidated financial statements of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. as of May 31, 2008,
and for the three and nine month periods ended May 31, 2008 and 2007 and included in this Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2008 is incorporated by reference in the Companys Registration Statement No. 333-72756. Pursuant
to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered as part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Killman, Murrell & Company, P.C.
|Killman, Murrell & Company, P.C.    
|Houston, Texas                      
|July 15, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-3-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                         685,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  366,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    98,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,256,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,068,000
<PP&E>                                      94,656,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              28,416,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              82,846,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,135,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       157,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,965,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                82,846,000
<SALES>                                     68,528,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            68,699,000
<CGS>                                       20,621,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,212,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,867,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             845,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,154,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,154,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,154,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARK KEVIN SMITH.

May 19, 1987.

Petition for certification granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division for reconsideration in light of *State v. Cameron,*104 *N.J.*42 (1986), and *State v. Warren,*104 *N.J.*571 (1986).

Jurisdiction is not retained.
#### Dan Koo Yuk CHEN, an individual doing business as Hong Kong Plaza, and Paul Dan, an individual doing business as Hong Kong Plaza, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-55601.

D.C. No. CV-98-6693-TJH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 17, 2000.

Decided Jan. 10, 2001.

*692Before PREGERSON, NOONAN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Appellants Dan Koo Yuk Chen and Paul Dan (“the Dans”) appeal the district court’s order granting Appellee Scottsdale Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Dans’ motion for summary judgment. This court has jurisdiction to review the district court’s final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not set them out in detail. On appeal, the Dans argue that Scottsdale breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by settling the *Tong*action and thereby exhausting the policy limits. We disagree.

As California courts have explained, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing runs in favor of the insured; thus, generally, third party claimants, such as the Dans, may not bring an action for the breach of the covenant or its duties. *See Hand v. Farmers Ins. Exchange,*23 Cal.App.4th 1847, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 258, 261 (Cal.App.1994). However, under Section 11580 of the California Insurance Code, a third party claimant who receives a “final judgment” against the insured becomes a third party beneficiary to the insurance contract and may sue directly on its provisions, including the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. *Id.*at 264-265. In this context, “final judgment” means a final disposition from the highest reviewing court, or if no appeal is taken, the judgment becomes final upon the expiration of the appeal period. *See Hughes v. Mid-Century Ins. Co.,*38 Cal. App.4th 1176, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 302, 308 (Cal. App.1995).

*693In the instant case, the Dans’ judgment against Soundtek had not yet become final for the purposes of section 11580 when Scottsdale settled with the *Tong*plaintiffs. Scottsdale settled with *Tong*plaintiffs on March 10, 1998, long before the expiration of the time for appeal of the Dans’ judgment against Soundtek. Lacking a final judgment, the Dans did not enjoy the rights and benefits under the policy. Therefore, like third party claimants generally, Scottsdale did not owe the Dans a duty of good faith and fair dealing when it settled the *Tong*claim.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KUAN-YI CHEN, AKA Kuanyi Chen, 

AKA Pangzi Chen, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-72031 

Agency No. A205-346-897 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted October 10, 2018 

University of Hawaii Manoa

Before: WARDLAW, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Kuan-Yi Chen (Chen), a native and citizen of Taiwan who resides in the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration

Judge’s (IJ) denial of a continuance and of administrative closure. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo and 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

FEB 12 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

findings of fact for substantial evidence, Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1290 (9th 

Cir. 2008), and we review denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion, Ahmed 

v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

1. The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s denial of a continuance to 

give Chen more time to file an application for parole through his U.S. citizen 

daughter. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that any potential 

relief was speculative. Chen had previously applied for parole, but he was denied

that relief in 2012 after failing to respond to a request that he submit proof of his 

marriage and proof of legal presence in CNMI. Given this and Chen’s conviction 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(i) for harboring aliens for financial 

gain, the BIA did not err in concluding it was unlikely Chen would be eligible for a 

favorable exercise of discretion, and thus had not shown “good cause” to warrant a 

continuance. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; see An Na Peng v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1248, 1253

(9th Cir. 2012) (“The regulations do not define good cause, but the IJ—and, on 

appeal, the BIA—should consider factors including (1) the nature of the evidence 

excluded as a result of the denial of the continuance, (2) the reasonableness of the 

immigrant’s conduct, (3) the inconvenience to the court, and (4) the number of 

continuances previously granted.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2. The BIA did not err in denying Chen administrative closure to allow 

him to apply for parole. Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 890-91 (9th 
3 

Cir. 2018). There was substantial evidence that relief was speculative because of

Chen’s previous denial of parole, his conviction for harboring aliens for financial 

gain, and the lack of any pending application for parole or other relief. 

PETITION DENIED.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
      Here's how you know **The .gov means it’s official.**
            
            Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
 **The site is secure.**
            
            The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Menu


close HomeAbout
    About the MSPB	
			Contacts & Locations
			Equal Employment Opportunity
			Information Quality Standards
			No FEAR Act
			Open.Gov
			Organization
			Plans, Budget & Performance
			Privacy Program
           Merit System Principles
	Prohibited Personnel Practices
	 Site Index and SearchAppeals
    Appeal Process
						Appellant Q&A
    Electronic Filing
    Forms
    Hearing Sites
    Policy & Resources
    Regulations
    Whistleblower Q&A 
	Electronic Filing  
	Mediation Appeals ProgramDecisions
    Case Reports
Nonprecedential Decisions
		Precedential DecisionsStudies & Publications
       About & Contact Studies
		Latest Publications
		Newsletters
		Reports
          Research Briefs
		Search StudiesSurveys of Federal Employees Public & Information Services
    Accessibility
		   Contracting & Procurement
			  Federal Register Notices
		      FOIA Program
				 e-FOIA Reading Room
        Submit a FOIA Request
           FOIA Reports 
			Information Collections
			Jobs & Internships
	Press Releases & News
	Privacy Program
				Regulations
			    Technical Support Search small
Search




Home
       Appeal Process
    Appellant Q&A
      Electronic Filing
      Forms
      Hearing Sites
		Mediation Appeals Program
		Policy & Resources
     		Regulations
     Whistleblower Q&ASearch and Site Index MSPB Training

    
 Introduction to Appeals
	  Introduction to MSPB (10/19/2011)
  Pro Bono Representation of Appellants   (5/3/2013)
  Prohibited Personnel Practices Mini-Briefings   (7/5/2012)
   Blowing the WhistleMini-Briefings (7/5/2012)
   MSPB Mandatory Electronic Filing for Agencies and Attorneys (1/5/2012)
   What's the Difference between the EEOC and the MSPB? (11/15/2011)


Return to top


About MSPB
			  Accessibility
           Budget and Performance
          FOIA
          Info Quality Standards
          No FEAR Act
    
          Office of the Inspector General
          Privacy Program   
           Technical Support       USA.gov
		OSC.gov
				 Vote.gov


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Agency Contact Center (202) 653-7200
          mspb@mspb.gov