alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.2

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

CAPITAL ONE MULTI-ASSET EXECUTION TRUST

Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust

c/o Capital One Bank
(USA), National Association

4851 Cox Road

Glen Allen,
Virginia 23060

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust for
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2016 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Capital One Services, LLC (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Subservicing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2006 by and between Capital One Bank (USA), National Association and the Servicer (the
Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Servicer Compliance Statement this 31st day of March, 2017.



|                          |  |                                          
|------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC
|                          | 
|By:                       |  | /s/ Noelle Eder                          
|Name:                     |  | Noelle Eder                              
|Title:                    |  | Executive Vice President, Card Operations
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution settlement of administrative proceedings;

Adjudicatory matter;

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: October 23, 2014.

Jill M. Peterson,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-25676 Filed 10-24-14; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Alivia R. Carruth","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/arcarrut\/","title":"STS-124","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0Vi23QVXdl\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-124\/\">STS-124<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-124\/embed\/#?secret=0Vi23QVXdl\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-124” — NASA\" data-secret=\"0Vi23QVXdl\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/jsc2007e048272\/jsc2007e048272~large.jpg?w=600&h=1275&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1275}
cc: Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge 

DeAnn Wiesner 

Gretchen Grierson 

Jodie Ritchie 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 2 

(0)-1947
NUMBER 13-14-00528-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS, RICHARD FREYMANN, AND

CLIFF COPPEDGE

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relators, State Farm Lloyds, Richard Freymann, and Cliff Coppedge, have filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct respondent, the Honorable 

Rose Guerra Reyna, Presiding Judge of the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, 

Texas, to withdraw her order denying relators’ verified plea in abatement and to enter an 

order abating the suit for damages brought against relators by the real parties in interest, 

Maribel Guzman and David Guzman, until sixty days after they provide relators with a 

 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

notice letter for their claim stating the specific, separate amounts for the claimed damages 

and attorney’s fees. See TEX. INS. CODE ANN. § 541.154 (West, Westlaw through 2013 

3d C.S.) (“Prior Notice of Action”); id. § 541.155 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) 

(“Abatement”); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1 (“Commencement” of Original Proceedings). In 

addition, relators request that this Court issue immediate temporary relief staying 

respondent’s order denying the plea in abatement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10 

(“Temporary Relief”). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus 

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of mandamus should be 

denied for the reasons expressed in our opinion in In re State Farm Lloyds, Richard 

Freymann, and Nathan Burris, No. 13-14-00347-CV, 2014 WL 4243701, at **4–9 (Tex. 

App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 27, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op). Accordingly, the 

Court DENIES the petition for writ of mandamus and request for immediate temporary 

relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 19th 

day of September, 2014.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 132510 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132510 COA: 267278 Wayne CC: 98-005425-01 MICHAEL W. ANDREWS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 28, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d0122 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 29, 2007

Clerk
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 21, 2013

NO. 03

- 11

- 00555

- CR

Edwin Gus Schneider, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTIC E JONES, JUSTICES FI ELD AND ABOUSSIE*

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ABOUSSIE

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error requiring reversal in t he trial

court’s judgment s of conviction : IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the

Court that the trial court’s judgment s of conviction are in all things affirmed; and it appearing

that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudica tion as to costs is made;

and that this decision be certified below for observance.

*Before Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
                       AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF
                         U.S. TIMBERLANDS COMPANY, L.P.

      This Amendment No. 1 is made as of the 6th day of May, 1998 by U.S.
Timberlands Services Company, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (the
"General Partner").

                               W I T N E S S E T H

      WHEREAS, the General Partner proposes to amend Sections 8.3(a) and 8.3(b)
of the Partnership Agreement to permit the General Partner to make annual and
quarterly reports available to Unitholders by electronic means for the following
reasons:

                  (i) making reports available electronically will eliminate the
      cost involved in printing and mailing annual and quarterly reports to the
      Unitholders; and

                  (ii) the substance of the information contained in annual and
      quarterly reports is already dated by the time it is otherwise required to
      be mailed and is available on a more timely basis through EDGAR and other
      Internet sites; and

                  (iii) such change, particularly with respect to quarterly
      reports, will conform to the distribution requirements of the Nasdaq Stock
      Market; and

      WHEREAS, Section 13.1 of the amended and restated agreement of limited
partnership of U.S. Timberlands Company, L.P. (the "Partnership") (the
"Partnership Agreement"; terms used herein and not otherwise defined having the
meanings given to them in the Partnership Agreement), provides the procedure for
amending the Partnership Agreement when such amendment is to be adopted solely
by the General Partner; and

      WHEREAS, in addition to the benefits provided by such proposed amendment,
the General Partner has determined in its discretion, in accordance with Section
13.1(d)(i) of the Partnership Agreement, that the proposed amendment "does not
adversely affect the Limited Partners in any material respect";

      NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:

      1. The Partnership Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the words
"mailed or furnished" in Sections 8.3(a) and 8.3(b) and substituting the
following in lieu thereof:

                  "furnished or made available (including pursuant to electronic
            means)".

      2. Except as amended hereby, all provisions of the Partnership Agreement
remain in full force and effect.


                                        1
<PAGE>

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment No. 1 to
the Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement as of the date first written
above.


GENERAL PARTNER:                       U.S. TIMBERLANDS SERVICES COMPANY, L.L.C.


                                       By: /s/ JOHN M. RUDEY
                                          ------------------------
                                          Name: John M. Rudey
                                          Title:Chairman


                                         2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marcie Henry,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03427-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/23/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8516 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8516 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 2
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-13-00036-CV

____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF T.V.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. PC05244 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

After a bench trial, the trial court terminated C.V.’s parental rights to her 

daughter T.V. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory 

grounds existed for termination, and that termination of C.V.’s parental rights 

would be in the best interest of T.V. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001 (West 

Supp. 2012). C.V. appeals the trial court’s judgment. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief that presents a professional 

evaluation of the record and demonstrates why there are no arguable grounds to be 

advanced on appeal. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

See generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 
2

(1967) (procedure in criminal cases); see also Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & 

Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) 

(applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights).

Appellant’s attorney notified his client that he found no meritorious issues 

for appeal, that he filed an Anders brief with the Court, and that she had the option 

of filing a pro se response on appeal to raise issues on her behalf. He also informed 

her that she should request a complete copy of the trial court record. This Court 

notified appellant of her right to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for 

filing it. C.V. timely filed her pro se response. She later filed a letter asking for 

more time to file another pro se response. The filing deadline has passed.

After reviewing the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, the counsel’s brief,

and C.V.’s pro se response, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that there are no

plausible grounds for appeal. We find no arguable error requiring us to order 

appointment of new counsel to re-brief this appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s order

terminating C.V.’s parental rights to T.V., and we grant appellant’s attorney’s 

motion to withdraw.1

 1

In connection with withdrawing from the case, counsel shall inform 

appellant of the outcome of this appeal and inform her that she has the right to file 

a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 53; In the 
3

The judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

 ________________________________

 DAVID GAULTNEY

 Justice

Submitted on April 9, 2013

Opinion Delivered May 23, 2013

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

 

Interest of K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no 

pet.).
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


          In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of American Homestar
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2002
(the  "Report"),  I,  Craig A. Reynolds, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby  certify  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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  September 24, 2002                      /s/ Craig A. Reynolds
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Craig A. Reynolds,
                                                Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4943

_____________________________

KENNETH J. WEST, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

James Daniel, Judge.

July 2, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Kenneth J. West, Jr., pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.