alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-34.6
(logo) Grant Thornton

Accountants and Business Advisors


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors and Shareholders
LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc.


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria ("Management's
Report"), that Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (the "Company")
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the residential and
commercial mortgage backed securities for which the Company served as
third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria
1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(x)
and 1122(d)(4)(xiii)-(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to
the activities performed by the Company with respect to 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 Platform and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting
the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities
related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our
testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, 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
servicing activities 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 Land America Tax and Flood Services,
Inc. complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

San Diego, CA
February 6, 2008


12340 El Camino Real Suite 220 San Diego, CA 92130 T 858.704.8000 F 858.704.8099
W www.grantthornton.com

Grant Thornton LLP
US Member of Grant Thornton International
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10717

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STEVEN LAWRENCE FORCUM,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:17-CR-101-1

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Steven Lawrence Forcum has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Forcum has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Forcum’s 

response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 15, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10717 Document: 00514795678 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2019
No. 18-10717

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

 Case: 18-10717 Document: 00514795678 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2019
1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3840

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Israel Ayala-Gomez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 27, 2009

Filed: November 27, 2009 

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Israel Ayala-Gomez (Gomez) challenges the within-Guidelines sentence

imposed by the district court1

 after he pled guilty to illegally re-entering the United

States after being deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2), 6 U.S.C.

§ 202(3) & (4), and 6 U.S.C. § 557. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issues of the

validity of Gomez’s guilty plea, the disposition of objections made to the pre-sentence
-2-

investigation report (PSR), and whether the sentence imposed was substantively

unreasonable. 

First, we discern no basis for finding Gomez’s plea invalid: Gomez may not

attack the voluntariness of his plea for the first time on appeal, see United States v.

Villareal-Amarillas, 454 F.3d 925, 932 (8th Cir. 2006); and we find no plain error in

the court’s decision not to use a Spanish-speaking interpreter during the plea hearing,

see United States v. Gonzales, 339 F.3d 725, 728-29 (8th Cir. 2003) (failure to raise

issue of interpreter at hearing results in plain error review; no plain error where lack

of interpreter did not affect defendant’s substantial rights). Second, we decline to

review the issue of the objections to the PSR. See United States v. Thompson, 289

F.3d 524, 526-27 (8th Cir. 2002) (declining to review district court’s findings related

to sentencing enhancement, drug quantity, and criminal history, even for plain error,

where defendant’s counsel withdrew objections to PSR at sentencing hearing and

asked for sentence at low end of Guidelines range). 

Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to impose

the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th

Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347-50

(2007) (approving appellate presumption of reasonableness for sentences within

properly calculated Guidelines range); United States v. Cadenas, 445 F.3d 1091, 1094

(8th Cir. 2006) (although sentence within applicable Guidelines range is presumed

reasonable, presumption may be rebutted by evidence that district court failed to

consider relevant factor, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or

committed clear error of judgment). 

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antonio Sherrod JONES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-8110.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 27, 2009.

Antonio Sherrod Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Sherrod Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *238materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1433-1434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00229]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-15-002]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: January 14, 2015 at 11 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

[[Page 1434]]


STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Agendas for future meetings: none
    2. Minutes
    3. Ratification List
    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731-TA-986 and 987 (Second Review) 
(Ferrovanadium from China and South Africa). The Commission is 
currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views 
of the Commission on January 28, 2015.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: January 6, 2015.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-00229 Filed 1-7-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2004-1579

DENNIS N. PIXTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

B&B PLASTICS, INC. (doing business as Gambler),

Defendant-Appellee,

and

MICHAEL SURMAN and JOAN BRINGGER

(as personal representatives of the estate of Jack Russell Bringger, III),

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Florida in case no. 99-CV-6360, Judge Kenneth A. Marra.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The court notes that Dennis N. Pixton has not filed a status report since August

18, 2008.

The court's July 20, 2006 and January 15, 2008 orders required Pixton to file a

status report every 60 days.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1)	If Pixton does not file a status report within 21 days of the date of filing of

this order, the appeal will be dismissed.
(2)	The briefing schedule remains stayed. If the appeal is not dismissed

pursuant to paragraph (1) above, Pixton is directed to file a status report every 60 days

concerning the status of the related bankruptcy case and state how this appeal should

proceed.

FOR THE COURT

FEB 2 6 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

cc:	Gayle E. Halligan, Esq.

Richard C. Bagdasarian, Esq.	

FEB 2 6 2009

s17

	

JAW riUhthit.1

CLERK

2004-1579	 2
#### Savannah, Americus & Montgomery Ry. Co. *v.*McLeod.

The action being for a personal injury by negligently running a locomotive, and the evidence showing that the plaintiff’s capacity to labor was impaired to the extent of one half, and there being evidence from which the jury could have inferred that the plaintiff contributed in some degree to the injury by his own negligence, inasmuch as he was in such full possession of his faculties that he. knew danger was impending and knew also that after the engineer saw him he did not blow his whistle nor slow up his train, it was error to charge the jury thus: “It is contended by the plaintiff that he has sustained permanent injuries in lessening his capacity to labor and work. If this is true, I charge you that he would be entitled to recover under the rules that I will give you, if you find from the testimony that he has sustained permanent injury. Look to the testimony and see what his age is, and what his probable length of life is, and I will give you a table, the way prescribed by law to govern jurors in this class of cases. Look to these tables now and apply the tables to this case. There is two tables that you will have out before you. I will give you these rules now in reference to those tables. Estimate the value of the property in which the life-estate or dower is held, then find its.yearly value at six or seven per cent, on the rate agreed upon, multiply this result by the figures in the table above opposite to the age of the life-tenant in the seven per cent, column, which is as McLeod in this case. The reversionary interest is obtained by subtracting' the value of the life-estate from the value of the property.” The law merely permits jurors to use the tables; it does not require them to do so. Moreover, the annuity table cannot be rightly *531used on a basis of earnings and age, without deducting, first, a due proportion (in this case one half) for continuing ability to labor; secondly, some amount for probable diminution of ability by old age; and thirdly, a due proportion for the plaintiff’s contributory negligence, if the jury should believe that there was such negligence. The concluding part of the charge which refers to dower and reversionary interest was irrelevant, and might have been misleading.

April 30, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Action for damages. Before Judge Smith. Dodge superior court. March term, 1893.

E. A. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.

E. Herrman, W. B. Coeeee and E. A. Smith, *contra.*

*Judgment reversed.*
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATIONS 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, Arthur D. Levinson, 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 Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Genentech, Inc.



| | By:                | /s/ Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D.                                                   
| | ------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Name:
Title:
Date: | Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 1, 2002





I, Louis J. Lavigne, Jr., 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 Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Genentech, Inc.





| | By:                | /s/ Louis J. Lavigne, Jr.                                                                  
| | ------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Name:
Title:
Date: | Louis J. Lavigne, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
November 1, 2002

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            1244
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1727
<ALLOWANCES>                                       188
<INVENTORY>                                       2285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5596
<PP&E>                                            8634
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   10882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2017
<BONDS>                                            414
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                        6643
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     10882
<SALES>                                          10016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 10016
<CGS>                                             5132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    40
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1262
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (95)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1357
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1357
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25


</TABLE>
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 10, 2009

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RAMIRO URBINA RAMIREZ,

a/k/a Jesus Salvador Vega-Geronimo,

a/k/a Ramiro Urbana,

a/k/a Jesus Salvador Vega,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-1281

(D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00480-REB-1)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and

GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

This matter is before the court following our receipt of notice that

Appellant Ramiro Urbina Ramirez was removed to Mexico on March 17, 2009. 

We directed the parties to respond in writing whether this appeal is moot. On
-2-

May 4, 2009, the government filed its response confirming that Mr. Ramirez was

removed from the United States and requesting dismissal on the grounds of

mootness. See United States v. Vera-Flores, 496 F.3d 1177, 1180-81 (10th Cir.

2007). Counsel for Mr. Ramirez does not dispute the factual or legal basis of the

government’s position and does not oppose the motion to dismiss. We have

reviewed the record, the parties’ materials, and the relevant legal authority, and

we agree that this matter is moot.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge
Exhibit
31.01




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE
13a-14




I, George G. Chachas, certify
that:




1.           I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Anoteros, Inc.;





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 registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;





4.           I
am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:





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





(b)         Evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer’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





(c)         Disclosed
in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial
reporting; and




5.           I
have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting.








Date:
March 27, 2008
  Signature
  By:
George G. Chachas
 Its:
Chief Executive Officer