alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-34.1
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
Suite 900
10 South Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102-1761


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Citibank, N.A.:

We have examined management's assessment, included in the accompanying
Management Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that
Citibank, N.A. (the Custodian) complied with servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i),
1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii) set forth in Item 1122(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB in connection with the
servicing of residential mortgage loans (other than loans held for its own
portfolio) for which the Custodian performs a particular servicing function
pursuant to a custodial agreement covering transactions that are serviced on the
Citilink, Mortgageserv, and Fidelity servicing platforms (the Platform), as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Management is responsible for the
Custodian's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assessment about the Custodian's compliance
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 Custodian's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining
whether the Custodian processed those selected transactions and performed those
selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Custodian during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Custodian during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Custodian's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Custodian complied with certain
servicing criteria outlined in Exhibit A in the accompanying Management
Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
February 22, 2008


KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**ALBERT BALDISH,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 12 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 28th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Stone TanChina Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periodcertified.

 

 

Signed on this 10th day of March, 2009

 

 
|   | /s/ Richard Tan                                                                  |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Richard Tan                                                                      |
|   | Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive, Accounting and Financial Officer) |

 

----
Exhibit
            99.1
 Annual
            Servicer's Certificate
 Provided
            by Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation
 to
            Holders
            of Notes and Certificates







**NISSAN
      MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION**




**OFFICER'S
      CERTIFICATE**




The
      undersigned, Jeffrey L. Edwards, Vice President, Operations of NISSAN MOTOR
      ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby
      certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:




(1)           The
      undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its
      capacity as Servicer, during the period February 22, 2007 through March 31,
      2007
      (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to that certain Sale
      and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 22, 2007 (the “Agreement”), by and
      among the Company, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as Seller, and Nissan
      Auto Receivables 2007-A Owner Trust, as Issuer (the “Issuer”), to be conducted
      under his supervision; and




(2)           To
      the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has
      fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement throughout the Reporting
      Periodexcept
      for certain technical instances of non-compliance with respect to certain
      reporting requirements and calculations regarding one interest payment and
      one
      collateral pool balance.  Both errors were corrected upon recognition
      and, individually and in the aggregate did not have a material adverse impact
      on
      the Noteholders and did not create a Servicer Default under the
      Agreement.




This
      Officer’s Certificate is being furnished to Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner
      Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, Standard
      & Poor’s Ratings Services and Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., as required
      by Section 4.09(a) of the Agreement.  Capitalized terms used but
      not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
      Agreement.




IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 29th day of
      June,
      2007.




/s/
      Jeffrey L.
      Edwards


Jeffrey
      L.
      Edwards


Vice
      President,
      Operations





























34
#### In the Matter of Martin Banks, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chair of the New York State Division of Parole, et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 1, 2009;

decided June 30, 2009

*906Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely (see CPLR 5513 [b]; *Eaton v State of New*York, 76 NY2d 824 [1990]).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

July 12, 2024

SC-2024-0356

Ex parte Cory Bourke Rogers PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Cory Bourke Rogers 

v. City of Madison) (Madison Circuit Court: CC-22-1276, CC-22-1277, 

CC-22-1278, CC-22-1279, and CC-22-1280; Criminal Appeals: CR-2023-

0535).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on July 12, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Cook, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Wise, 

Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodney Maurice SAUNDERS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-6175.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 8, 2009.

Decided: May 26, 2009.

Rodney Maurice Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Paul M. Tiao, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent' in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Maurice Saunders seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2007) motion. The district court’s order was entered on September 2, 2008, 2008 WL 4133853. Saunders’ notice of appeal was filed on January 26, 2009.* In his notice *222of appeal, Saunders states that he did not receive notice of the district court’s order until January 26, 2009.

Where the United States is a party to a civil action, the parties are accorded sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)); see *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2366, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

Saunders’ notice of appeal is clearly untimely. However, under Rule 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the time to file an appeal if: (1) the moving party did not receive notice of the entry of the order within twenty-one days after entry; (2) the motion is filed within 180 days of entry of the judgment or order or within seven days of receiving notice from the court, whichever is earlier; and (3) no party would be prejudiced. We accordingly remand to the district court to determine whether Saunders is entitled under Rule 4(a)(6) to the reopening of the appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

*REMANDED.*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF      2002**

|   | 1. | 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. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                             |            |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
|        |                                                                                  | /s/ Clay Hansen |
|   | Clay                Hansen,Chairman,                President and Director       |
|   | (Principal                Executive Officer)Dated:                March 31, 2008 |

----
Wachovia
Bank, National Association
 8739
Research Drive, URP4
 Charlotte,
NC 28288-1075
  
 WACHOVIA
SECURITIES








1123 SERVICER'S
CERTIFICATE






Reference
is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March
1, 2007, by and among Wachovia Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as
Depositor, Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, CWCapital
Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer, and Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-C30 (the "Agreement").  Capitalized terms
used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the
Agreement.
 
 Pursuant
to Section 3.13 of this Agreement, Timothy Ryan and Marilyn Addison, Managing
Director Customer Relationship Management and Director of Compliance Third Party
Oversight, do hereby certify that:
 
 1.
              A
      review of the activities of the Master Servicer, during the period from
      March 1, 2007 and of its performance December 31, 2007, per the Agreement
      during such period has been made under our supervision;
  and
 
 2.
              To
      the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has
      fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material
      respects throughout the period March 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007,
      except as stated below:
 
 With
respect to servicing criterion 1122(d)(2)(ii), one disbursement made via wire
transfer was authorized by personnel for amounts greater than such personnel’s
approval limits.  Management does not believe that this failure to
follow internal procedures resulted in any incorrect wire transfer or in any
impact to investors.  The Company implemented additional controls in
2007 to better monitor these processes and correct the
non-compliance.
 
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the
10th
day of March 2008.
 
 
   /s/ Timothy S.
      Ryan
              
              /s/ Marilyn
      AddisonTimothy S. Ryan,
      Managing Director
              
              Marilyn Addison,
      DirectorWachovia Bank,
      National Association
              
              Wachovia Bank,
      National Association
     O:\shared\sp\INCOME\Compliance
and Third Party Oversight\2008 - C3PO - JHill\Wachovia Compliance\Annual
Certifications\Certificate _0308\2007 Requirement\Signed Word Docs\Wachovia
2007-C30.doc
exv10w2



 





Exhibit 10.2





	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	
LifeScan, Inc. 1000
Gibraltar Drive, Milpitas, CA 95035-6312

Tel: 408-263-9789 Fax: 408-946-6070 www.LifeScan.com







June 1,
2007



Andrew
Denver

Chairman

Universal Biosensors Inc

27, Woodville Ave

Wahroonga NSW 2076
Australia


Dear Andrew,






I am writing to you today to propose amending our current Development and Research
Agreement.




This amendment will be effective as of the date of this letter and amends the
Development and Research Agreement (“Agreement”) entered into the 1st
day of April, 2002 and amended on March 31,2004 and
December 21, 2004 and December 7, 2005 by
and between Universal Biosensors, Inc., a Delaware corporation having a principal place
of business at 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808
(“Universal Biosensors”) and LifeScan Inc., a California corporation having its principal
place of business at 1000 Gibraltar Drive, Milpitas, California 95035 (“Lifescan”).
LifeScan and Universal Biosensors are sometimes referred to herein individually as a
“Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”




In consideration for the covenants and undertakings set forth herein and in the
Agreement, the Parties hereby agree:-




Article 2.2 is hereby amended to add the following sentence at the end thereof:





“The structure and personnel of the Steering Committee may be changed at any
time upon mutual consent of the parties.”




Article 4.1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:



     
4.1 In consideration for the rights, licenses, and options granted herein to
LIFESCAN, LIFESCAN shall make payments to UNIVERSAL BIONSENSORS in
accordance with the provisions of Exhibit E, which is attached hereto.




 









 







Article 9.2 a) is amended by inserting new contact details for Universal Biosensors’ party
to receive a copy of any notice served by LIFESCAN as follows:




Chief Executive Officer

103 Ricketts Road

Mt. Waverly VIC 3149

Australia

Facsimile: + 61 3 9543 6490

(or such other address and contact details as may be notified to Lifescan from

time to time by written notice.)






The Parties agree that all other provisions in the Agreement remain effective.




In witness whereof, LifeScan and Universal Biosensors have caused these present to be
signed.




AGREED AND ACCEPTED TO:




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	UNIVERSAL BIOSENSORS INC	 	 	 	LIFESCAN, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Andrew Denver
	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ John E. Klopp	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Andrew Denver
	 	 	 	Name:
	 	John E. Klopp	 	 
	Title:

	 	Chairman
	 	 	 	Title:
	 	WWVP, Bus. Dev.	 	 
	Date:

	 	June 1, 2007
	 	 	 	Date:
	 	June 1, 2007	 	 








 









 





EXHIBIT
E




In consideration for the rights, licenses and options granted herein,
LIFESCAN, from December 1, 2006,
shall make payments to UNIVERSAL BIOSENSORS of two hundred fifty thousand DOLLARS US (US
$250,000.00) within thirty (30) days of the beginning of each calendar quarter during the Term. Any
payments due hereunder shall be payable to UNIVERSAL BIOSENSORS in United States Dollars by
wire transfer.
#### In the Matter of John W. Broderick, Appellant, v Felix J. Catena, as Montgomery County Court Judge, et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 5, 2009;

decided February 17, 2009

Motion by John Mazzarella for leave to file an affidavit amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein denied.
Exhibit 10.1



 





EXHIBIT 10.1




SUMMARY OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS’ COMPENSATION




Base Salaries. The current annual salaries for the named executive officers of Pacific Sunwear of
California, Inc. (the “Company”) are as follows:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Named Executive Officer	 	Title	 	New Annual Base Salary
	Sally Frame Kasaks
	 	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer	 	$	1,250,000	 
	Wendy E. Burden
	 	Chief Operating Officer	 	$	548,825	 
	Gerald M. Chaney
	 	Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer	 	$	590,000	 
	Thomas M. Kennedy
	 	Division President, PacSun	 	$	620,000	 
	Lou Ann Bett
	 	Division President, demo	 	$	490,000	 






Annual Bonuses. The Company provides each of its named executive officers with an annual incentive
bonus opportunity based on the achievement of performance criteria established by the Compensation
Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors. Ms. Kasaks’ target incentive bonus is 100% of her
base salary with a maximum incentive bonus of 200% of her base salary. For the Company’s fiscal
year ending on or about January 31, 2008, Ms. Kasaks’ bonus will be not less than $500,000. For
all other named executive officers, annual bonuses are weighted 80% for the Company earnings
component and 20% for the individual performance component. Bonus targets for the Named Officers
range from 0% to 100% of their respective base salaries.
#### Naima Dayan, Appellant, v Joseph York et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 30, 2009;

decided May 7, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine *840the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
#### Ralph Anthony JOHNSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Larry W. POWERS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-8574.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 27, 2009.

Ralph Anthony Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ralph Anthony Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Johnson that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Johnson failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Johnson has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.*
EXHIBIT 4.2

                                [G&P LETTERHEAD]

August 30, 2004

Mr. Richard Goldring
Scores Holding Company, Inc.
533-535 West 27th Street
New York, NY 10001

         Re:      Modified Retainer Agreement

Dear Mr. Goldring:

      Please accept this letter as  confirmation  that Scores  Holding  Company,
Inc. (the "Company"),  has agreed to modify the retainer agreement dated June 7,
2000 (the  "Retainer"),  between  the Company and  Gottbetter  & Partners,  LLP.
("G&P"),  effective August 30, 2004. The  modification,  which we understand was
approved by the Company's Board of Directors,  is for the Company to pay part of
its  outstanding  bill for legal  services with shares of the  Company's  common
stock, $.001 par value.

      We understand that part of the  outstanding  bill will be satisfied by the
issuance  of  300,000  shares  valued at  $25,000.  The board of  directors  has
approved the filing of a registration on Form S-8 for these 300,000 shares.  The
legal  services for which these  shares are being  registered  and  subsequently
issued to Adam S. Gottbetter,  a partner in G&P, did not include any services in
connection   with  the  offer  or  sale  of  securities  in  a  capital  raising
transaction, and did not directly or indirectly promote or maintain a market for
the Company's securities.

      Please  note that this  letter may be filed as an exhibit to the Form S-8.
In order to effectuate the modification of the Retainer, please sign this letter
and return it to my office. If you have any questions, please call me.

Sincerely,

GOTTBETTER & PARTNERS, LLP

/s/ Gottbetter & Partners, LLP

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

SCORES HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

By:      /s/ Richard Goldring
         --------------------
Name:    Richard Goldring
Title:   President

                                       11
#### In the Matter of Rosemary Toriola, Appellant, v Supreme Court State of New York Appellate Term 2nd and 11th Judicial Districts et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 2, 2009;

decided April 2, 2009

Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 2, 2008 *798dismissal order denied *[see*11 NY3d 866 (2008)]. Motion for leave to appeal denied.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.