alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Helaine M. Kaplan, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reportson Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by thisreport on Form 10-K of the COMM 2014-UBS5 Mortgage Trust (the "ExchangeAct periodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodicreports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading 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 theperiod covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliancestatements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and exceptas disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestationreports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included asan exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Anymaterial instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonablyrelied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian, ParkBridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, asServicing Function Participant, Computershare Trust Company, NationalAssociation, as Servicing Function Participant for the CertificateAdministrator, and Computershare Trust Company, National Association, asServicing Function Participant for the Custodian.

 

 

 

Dated: March 11, 2024

 

 

 

 

/s/ Helaine M. Kaplan

Helaine M. Kaplan

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of thedepositor)
#### JOHN ZAMELLI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FRANK TROST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued October 3, 1944

Decided January 19, 1945.

Before Justices Parker and Colie.

For the appellant, *Joseph V. Fumagalli (Peter Uofsim,*of counsel).

Eor the respondent, *A. Leon Kohlreiter (Archibald Kreiger„*of counsel).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Colie, J.

John Zamelli instituted suit in the District Court to recover damages from Prank Trost for having “maliciously, wickedly, negligently and with intent to injure this plaintiff, deliberately constructed a ditch on his lands and premises and erected a dam in front thereof so as to deliberately divert.water which would accumulate on said land by reason of rainfall or other causes,” and thereby caused the water “to flow upon the lands of this plaintiff to the injury and damage of this plaintiff.” The facts disclose that the Trost property was somewhat elevated above Zamelli’s; that Trost dug a ditch some twenty feet long and a foot deep; that he dammed up one end thereof, causing the water which accumulated therein to flow over and seep into Zamelli’s *389property and thereby causing the damage complained of. The cause was tried by the court sitting alone and resulted in a judgment of $300 and costs in favor of the plaintiff. Thereafter the present appellant obtained and argued a rule to show cause limited to damages only and the trial judge reduced the judgment to $200 without costs.

Appellant argues before this court that the 'District Court Judge erred in admitting testimony of the cost of material used by the respondent in repairing the damage to his property caused as aforesaid. The argument on the return of the rule to show cause forecloses appellant from raising in this court, points necessarily embraced in the scope of the rule to show cause. *Cleaves*v. *Yeskel,*104 *N. J. L.*491; *Wilday*v. Panas, 122 *Id.*28.

It is next urged that the court erred in certain of its rulings on the admission of evidence. The state oí case ind icates that the objections were made after the witnesses had answered the questions and that no motions were made to strike the answers from the record. Therefore, no proper basis has been laid for a review of the trial court’s rulings in admitting the evidence complained of.

Lastly, we are urged to reverse the judgment on the ground that there is “no liability for damages resulting from the diversion of surface waters by a property owner from his property.” In *Bowlsby*v. Speer, 31 *N. J. L.*351, the Supreme Court held “that no right of any kind can be claimed in the mere flow of surface water, and that neither its retention, diversion, repulsion, or altered transmission is an actionable injury, even though damage ensues.” This rule was expressly approved in *Jessup*v. *Bamford Bros. Co.,*66 *Id.*642. These cases control the decision of this court and we hold that the court below erred in entering judgment for the plaintiff. The judgment under appeal is reversed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification
 Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      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 registrant, 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)
    
    designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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;
andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: November 9, 2009
    
    /s/ Don M. Bailey

Don M. BaileyChief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MULTICARE
COMPANIES, INC. FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE
30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,293
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  121,267
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,852
<PP&E>                                         447,817
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 807,885
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,502
<BONDS>                                        432,689
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           308
<OTHER-SE>                                     237,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   807,885
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               347,956
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  263,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,358
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,171
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,230
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,941
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    873
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,068
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Berkeley Technology Limited on
Form 10-Q for the period  ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the U.S.  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Arthur I.  Trueger,  as Executive
Chairman of the registrant,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
by ss. 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
registrant.



Date:  August 14, 2009                           By:    /s/  Arthur I. Trueger

                                                        Arthur I. Trueger
                                                        Executive Chairman
(logo) Grant Thornton  **Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**** **

|      | **Audit • Tax •Advisory****Grant Thornton LLP**1201 Walnut St, Suite 2200Kansas City, Missouri 64106T 816.412.2400 F 816.412.2404 |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 Board of DirectorsSitus Holdings, LLC We have examined management' s assertion, included in the accompanying Certification  Regarding Compliance with  Applicable  Servicing  Criteria (“Management's  Assertion"),  that  Situs  Holdings,  LLC  (the  "Company") complied with  servicing criteria set forth in Items  1117, 1119, 1122(d)(3)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i) and  1122(d)(4)(vii) of the U.S. Securities and  Exchange  Commission's Regulation  AB included in Appendix A as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, with respect to the Company's Operating or Trust Advisor Services performed over the deals listed in Appendix B (the “Platform”). Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Services and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's activities with respect to the Platform during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. In our opinion, management's assertion that Situs Holdings, LLC complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.  /s/ Grant Thornton LLP Kansas City, Missouri February 18, 2016
#### BAYSHORE REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. LOCAL UNION NO. 641, GROCERY, CANDY, FOOD PROCESSING.

May 4, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 7, 2019

No. 04-18-00392-CR

STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Lee Allison GOINS,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR2733

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On May 20, 2019, appellant filed a motion for en banc reconsideration. Because the panel 

has issued a different opinion, the motion for en banc reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.5.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

 1

The Honorable Raymond Angelini, retired, was sitting by assignment and signed the order challenged on appeal.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.139
                                   DEMAND NOTE

$250,000.00                                                   New York, New York
                                                              April 23, 1999

        FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Wilshire Technologies, Inc. a
California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower"), hereby
unconditionally PROMISES TO PAY to the order to TRILON DOMINION PARTNERS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Lender"), at 245 Park Avenue, 28th Floor,
New York, NY 10167, or at such other place as the holder of this Demand Note may
designate from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of
America and in immediately available funds, the principal amount of Two Hundred
Fifty Thousand and 00/100, DOLLARS ($250,000.00), together with interest on the
unpaid principal amount of this Demand Note outstanding from time to time from
the date hereof, at a rate per annum equal to the Prime rate of interest of 8.5%
plus 3.0%, or the highest rate permitted by law, whichever shall be less.

        The principal amount of the indebtedness evidenced hereby shall be
payable on demand. Interest thereon shall be paid when principal is paid from
the date hereof until such principal amount is paid in full at such interest
rate as specified above. Following failure to pay on demand, Borrower agrees to
pay interest on any overdue payment of principal at a rate per annum equal to
the stated interest rate plus 5%, or the highest rate permitted by law,
whichever shall be less. All interest calculations shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year.

        Demand, presentment, protest and notice of nonpayment and protest are
hereby waived by Borrower.

        Borrower shall have no right to make any off-set against or deduct from
any payment due under this Demand Note.

        Principal and interest may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

        This Demand Note may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in
writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change is
sought.

        All covenants of Borrower in this Demand Note and all rights of the
holder under this Demand Note shall bind Borrower and its successors and
assigns, and all such covenants and rights shall inure to the benefit of the
holder of this Demand Note and its successors and assigns.

        This Demand Note has been delivered and accepted at New York, New York
and shall be interpreted, governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
laws of the State of New York.

                                         Wilshire Technologies, Inc.


                                         By: /s/ Kathleen E. Terry
                                             -----------------------------
                                             Name:  Kathleen E. Terry
                                             Title: Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6228-6229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2635]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Industry Guides; OMB Control No. 3235-0069; SEC File No. 270-
069.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved 
collections of information discussed below.
    Industries Guides are used by registrants in certain industries as 
disclosure guidelines to be followed in disclosing information to 
investors in Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) and Exchange Act 
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) registration statements and certain other 
Exchange Act filings. The information filed with the Commission using 
the Industry Guides permits verification of compliance with securities 
law requirements and assures the public availability and dissemination 
of such information. The information required by the Industry Guides is 
filed on occasion and is mandatory. All information is provided to the 
public. The Commission estimates for administrative purposes only that 
the total annual burden with respect to the Industry Guides is one 
hour. The Industry Guides do not directly impose any disclosure burden.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed 
to

[[Page 6229]]

the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5e6ddd4d2c0d3c1d4eaf4ddd8d0d1f5dad8d79bd0dac59bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d2e151c1a081b091c223c151018193d12101f5318120d531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>; 
and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, 
VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c09092819f8da1a9aca2afb880b3a5a3eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cc9c9e8d9381ada5a0aea3b48cbfa9afe2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments must be 
submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: February 1, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2635 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wniteb ~tate5 (!Court of ~peaI5

for tbe jfeberaI (!Circuit

HARRY BURNETT,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Respondent.

2012-3102

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in case no. SF0432110400-I-1.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The Department of Justice moves without opposition

for a 5-day extension of time, until November 5, 2012, to

file its brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

Case: 12-3102 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 12/03/2012
HARRY BURNETT v. DOJ

The motion is granted.

s27

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

2

Case: 12-3102 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 12/03/2012