alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32
 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
  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.
 Dated: August 16, 2010
    /s/ Edward K. ChristianEdward K. ChristianChief Executive OfficerDated: August 16, 2010
    /s/ Samuel D. BushSamuel D. BushChief Financial Officer
#### CRAMP SHIPBUILDING CO. v. UNITED STATES (Duffy Const. Corp., third party defendant).

Civ. A. No. 7601.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania,

April 13, 1951.

Cause Remanded Jan. S, 1952.

*557Lewis H. Van Dusen, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Gerald A. Gleeson, U. S. Atty., Thomas J. Curtin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

John Edward Sheridan, Philadelphia, Pa., for 3d party defendant.

GANEY, District Judge.

The claim made by the plaintiff in its request for reconsideration is that the ruling in United States v. Sherwood, 1941, 312 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058, is no longer law. As evidence of this claim it points to United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 1951, 340 U.S. 543, 71 S.Ct. 399. In that case the Supreme Court of the United States held that the government could be impleaded as a third-party defendant pursuant to Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., and be required to answer the claim, made under the Federal Tort Claims Act, of a joint tort-feasor for contribution. That Act1 provided that the practice and procedure in actions under the Act shall be in accordance with The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the revision of Title 28, effective September 1, 1948, that provision 'was omitted as unnecessary because “the Rules of Civil Procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all civil • actions”.2

Because of the omission plaintiff states that the Rules apply to actions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) ' (2) as well as to those instituted under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). With this statement we agree. For there can be no question that as to matters of practice and procedure, the Federal Rules govern actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (2). However the question before us is not one of practice or procedure, but one of jurisdiction. The Federal Rules can not widen the jurisdiction of this court, they may only prescribe the methods by which that jurisdiction is to be exercised. United States v. Sherwood, supra,312 U.S. 584, 591, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058.

To avoid the rule of the Sherwood case, plaintiff contends that the problem whether a party may be joined with the United States as a codefendant in an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (2) is no longer a jurisdictional question. Although we are in sympathy with the position taken by plaintiff, stronger evidence than the fact that the Supreme Court construed the Federal Tort Claims Act liberally will be *558required by us before we would by-pass or ignore the ruling in the Sherwood case.

Accordingly, our opinion in the above entitled action filed February 16, 1951, is affirmed.

1

. Act of August 2, 1946, c. 753, Title IV, Sec. 411, 60 Stat. 844, 28 U.S.C. (1946 Ed.) § 932.

2

. S.Rep.No.1559, 80th Cong., 2nd Sess. See United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U.S. 543, at page 553, note 9, 71 S.Ct. 399, at page 406.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 549 

To clarify that funding for the Securities Investor Protection Corporation 

is not subject to the sequester. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2015 

Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. MURPHY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To clarify that funding for the Securities Investor Protection 

Corporation is not subject to the sequester. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION. 

4 Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emer5 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) does 

6 not apply with respect to the funding of the Securities In7 vestor Protection Corporation. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodney Eugene SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-7280.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.

Rodney Eugene Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Eugene Smith appeals the district court’s orders accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and ultimately denying his numerous pending motions related to his conviction and sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error with respect to the court’s denial of Smith’s motions for discovery requests, default judgment, to remit fine and restitution, and to treat his illness. Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Smith,*No. 1:05-cv-00175 (S.D.W. Va. July 25, 2007; Aug. 1, 2007).

To the extent the district court dismissed the majority of motions filed by Smith as second or successive § 2255 motions, an appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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 dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-*53138, 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss as to those portions of the court’s orders.*

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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.*

*

 To the extent that in his informal brief Smith seeks relief from this court under 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2000) and Fed. R.App. P. 2, we deny relief.
All Employee Bonus Policy




 Exhibit 10.16 
 ATP OIL & GAS CORPORATION 
 ALL EMPLOYEE BONUS POLICY 
 PURPOSE: The purpose of the ATP All Employee Bonus Policy is to share the success achieved by the Company with its employees whose performance meets or exceeds
expectations. If made, the Employee Bonus may be in addition to current compensation and an employee’s participation in any other benefits offered by ATP. 
 CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPATION: This All Employee Bonus Policy applies to all of ATP Employees regardless of tenure, title or responsibility. 
 CRITERIA FOR BONUS AWARD LEVEL: The President of ATP will determine on a semi-annual basis as to whether or not a distribution is appropriate. The amount of any distribution is based upon company performance
during the preceding six months and the financial capacity to pay such award. There are three criteria used to allocate the distribution among employees. The allocation is completed using a formula utilizing relative salary levels, employee
performance, and employee longevity with the Company. As this policy is designed to reward those who have helped ATP achieve success, those employees whose performance during the period has been below average may receive no allocation in the
distribution of any award.  
 PAYMENTS: Payments to Employees will be made at the direction of the President. If an employee leaves the
employment of ATP, the Employee will cease to participate in the Employee Bonus Program and forfeit any right to future distributions from this policy.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darren L. KEYS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-7593.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 28, 2008.

*536Darren L. Keys, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Ellis Eisenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darren L. Keys seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying, as successive, his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and marginal order denying his motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). 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 dispositive 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 Keys 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
(logo) LNR

          Partners, LLC

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

** **

**OF**

** **

**LNR PARTNERS, LLC**

** **

** **

The undersigned, Job Warshaw,being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the "Special Servicer"), asspecial servicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement, herebycertifies, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely inhis capacity as an officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individualcapacity, as follows:

 

1. I have reviewed theactivities performed by the Special Servicer under the applicable Pooling andServicing Agreement during the period commencing on January 1, 2016 and endingon December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"), and the SpecialServicer's performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been madeunder my supervision;

 

2. To the best of my knowledge,based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled its obligations underthe applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period

 

 

LNR Partners, LLC, 

A Florida limited liabilitycompany

 

By: /s/ Job Warshaw

Job Warshaw

President

 

 

Dated: February 22, 2017

 

 

1601 Washington Avenue ∙Suite700 ∙ Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 ∙Fax: (305)695-5601
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in millions)
 Six FiscalMonths EndedJune 30, 2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001EARNINGS, AS DEFINEDEarnings (loss) from operations before income
taxes and before adjustments for minority
interests in consolidated subsidiaries and after
eliminating
undistributed earnings of equity method investees
    
    $
    92.8
    
    
    $
    61.5
    
    
    $
    18.5
    
    
    $
    (1.2
    )
    
    $
    (27.6
    )
    
    $
    58.1Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    (0.2
    )
    
    
    (33.8
    )
    
    
    (9.2
    )
    
    
    (0.9
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Fixed charges
    
    
    24.2
    
    
    
    76.7
    
    
    
    49.4
    
    
    
    53.6
    
    
    
    47.5
    
    
    
    51.5TOTAL EARNINGS, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    116.8
    
    
    $
    104.4
    
    
    $
    58.7
    
    
    $
    51.5
    
    
    $
    19.9
    
    
    $
    109.6FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINEDInterest expense
    
    $
    20.9
    
    
    $
    36.5
    
    
    $
    35.0
    
    
    $
    45.3
    
    
    $
    41.3
    
    
    $
    43.2Amortization of capitalized expenses related to debt
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    3.4
    
    
    
    2.7
    
    
    
    4.5
    
    
    
    3.7
    
    
    
    4.4Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    0.2
    
    
    
    33.8
    
    
    
    9.2
    
    
    
    0.9
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Interest component of rent expense
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    3.0
    
    
    
    2.5
    
    
    
    2.9
    
    
    
    2.5
    
    
    
    3.9TOTAL FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    24.2
    
    
    $
    76.7
    
    
    $
    49.4
    
    
    $
    53.6
    
    
    $
    47.5
    
    
    $
    51.5RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
    
    
    4.8
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2.1
  62
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00238

- CR

R

ALEIGH L EE K EMP J R

., Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 396th District

Court

of Tarrant Count y (1428013D)

May 23, 2019

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is a ffirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwell
#### Rashad SHADEED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF PRISON TERMS; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-15850.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

Rashad Shaded, San Diego, CA, pro se.

*73Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. *73R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant’s “Motion: For Continuation and Amends” received on October 1, 2007, is construed as a response to the court’s September 13, 2007 order to show cause and to appellees’ September 11, 2007 motion for summary affirmance. The Clerk shall file the response.

We have reviewed appellees’ motion for summary affirmance, appellant’s opening brief and appellant’s response received on October 1, 2007, and the record. The questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The district court did not err in dismissing appellant’s action without prejudice for failure to serve the summons on defendants, despite the court’s repeated warnings to do so.

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 7, 2017

p0531 

# Order

Clerk June 7, 2017

154848

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154848

COA: 334544

Kalamazoo CC: 2015

- 000489

- FC

KENDALL MARCEL WILLIAMS

- JOHNSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2016

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is D ENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 736 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 736

 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require disclosure to 
States of the basis of determinations under such Act, to ensure use of 
   information provided by State, tribal, and county governments in 
         decisionmaking under such Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2015

   Mr. Enzi (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Barrasso) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require disclosure to 
States of the basis of determinations under such Act, to ensure use of 
   information provided by State, tribal, and county governments in 
         decisionmaking under such Act, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State, Tribal, and Local Species 
Transparency and Recovery Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING DECISIONAL TRANSPARENCY WITH AFFECTED STATES.

    Section 6(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1535(a)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before the first sentence; and
            (2) by striking ``Such cooperation shall include'' and 
        inserting the following:
    ``(2) Such cooperation shall include--
            ``(A) before making a determination under section 4(a), 
        providing to States affected by such determination all data 
        that is the basis of the determination; and
            ``(B)''.

SEC. 3. ENSURING USE OF STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL INFORMATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(16 U.S.C. 1532) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (21) as 
        paragraphs (3) through (22), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
    ``(2) The term `best scientific and commercial data available' 
includes all such data submitted by a State, tribal, or county 
government.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7(n) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 
1536(n)) is amended by striking ``section 3(13)'' and inserting 
``section 3(14)''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 35.9



|     |  |                                                                          
|---- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | CMBS Department MAC N9401-011
1055 10th Avenue S.E.
Minneapolis. MN 55414

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

390 Greenwich Street, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10013

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian for the National Harbor Companion Loan (in such capacities,
Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the reporting period):



| | (a) | A review of Wells Fargos activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the Servicing Agreement(s)) has been made
under my supervision; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule
B.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 27, 2015



|                
|----------------
|/s/ Gail Vannest
|Gail Vannest    
|Vice President  



---

To: Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

Schedule A

List of
Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2013 by and among GS MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION
II, Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC., Operating Advisor WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Certificate Administrator and U.S. BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Trustee relating to the series, GSMC 2013-GC10 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction , relating to the National Harbor Companion Loan, a Pari passu portion of which is included in the Series CGCMT 2013-GCJ11
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.



---

To: Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

Schedule B

Material
Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

Not Applicable