alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Leah Nivison,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the GS MortgageSecurities Trust 2013-GCJ12 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asSpecial Servicer, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor,CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing FunctionParticipant, and National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant.

 

 

 

Dated: March 17, 2020

 

 

/s/ Leah Nivison

 

 

Chief ExecutiveOfficer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 31 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 31

 Relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to 
         the Government of Pakistan of F-16 Block 52 aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 2016

  Mr. Paul introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to 
         the Government of Pakistan of F-16 Block 52 aircraft.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the issuance of a letter 
of offer with respect to any of the following proposed sales to the 
Government of Pakistan (described in the certification Transmittal No. 
15-80, sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate pursuant 
to section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
2776(b)(1))) on February 11, 2016, is hereby prohibited:
            (1) The proposed sale of eight (8) F-16 Block 52 aircraft 
        (two (2) C and six (6) D models), with the Fl00-PW-229 
        increased performance engine (Transmittal Numbered 15-80).
            (2) The proposed sale of fourteen (14) Joint Helmet Mounted 
        Cueing Systems (JHMCS), and related defense articles and 
        defense services (Transmittal Numbered 15-80).
            (3) The proposed sale of eight (8) AN/APG-68(V)9 radars, 
        and related defense articles and defense services (Transmittal 
        Numbered 15-80).
            (4) The proposed sale of eight (8) ALQ-211(V)9 Advanced 
        Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suites (AIDEWS), and 
        related defense articles and defense services (Transmittal 
        Numbered 15-80).
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 1766

OUMIE M. BITTAYE

,

Petitioner

,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR

, Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : November 19, 2019 Decided: January 6, 2020

Before FLOYD, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.

Oumie M. Bittaye , Petitioner Pro Se

. David Nicholas Harling, Ilana Joslyn Snyder

, Office of Immigration Litigation

, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Oum ie M. Bittaye , a native and citizen of The Gambia

, petition s for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. * We

have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and conclude that the Board

did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely and number

- barred. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2019). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons

stated by the Board. In re Bittaye (B.I.A. Oct. 30, 2018). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND

DISMISSED IN PART

* Bittaye has abandoned any challenge to the Board’s denial of her motion to reconsider by failing to raise the issue in her informal bri ef. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (limiting appellate review to issues raised in informal brief). Additionally, although Bittaye argues that her attorney rendered ineffective assistance in pursuing an adjustment of status appl ication on her behalf, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim on the ground that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638

- 40 (4th Cir. 2008).
EXHIBIT 10.3


    


SECOND AMENDMENT


TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







This Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement, effective as of October 27, 2008 and amended as of January 25, 2011, (the “Employment Agreement”), by and between AboveNet, Inc. (the “Company”) and Joseph P. Ciavarella (the “Employee”) is effective as of November 30, 2011 (this “Second Amendment”).







WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee are parties to the Employment Agreement, whose term is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012 (the “Term”); and







WHEREAS, the parties wish to extend the Term of the Employment Agreement to December 31, 2013;







NOW THEREFORE, the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:







1.           Section 1(b) of the Employment Agreement shall read as follows:







(b) The term (the “Term”) of the Employee’s employment hereunder will commence on the Effective Date and, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 6 hereof, will terminate at the end of the day on December 31, 2013.  The Term shall be automatically extended unless sooner terminated as provided herein, for successive additional one-year periods, unless at least 120 days prior to the end of Term, the Company or the Employee has notified the other that the Term will not be extended.







2.           All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in force and effect.











  





  











  








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the date first set forth above.









	 	
ABOVENET, INC.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Robert Sokota	 
	 	 	

Name: Robert Sokota

	 
	 	 	

Title: SVP and General Counsel

	 
	 	 	 	 












	 	
EMPLOYEE

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	


/s/ Joseph P. Ciavarella



	 
	 	

Joseph P. Ciavarella
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 28 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.28
                                      Agreed to February 3, 2016        

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE.

    There is established a Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies (in this resolution referred to as the ``joint committee'') 
consisting of 3 Senators and 3 Members of the House of Representatives, 
to be appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, respectively. The joint committee is 
authorized to make the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of 
the President-elect and Vice President-elect of the United States on 
January 20, 2017.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE.

    The joint committee--
        (1) is authorized to utilize appropriate equipment and the 
    services of appropriate personnel of departments and agencies of 
    the Federal Government, under arrangements between the joint 
    committee and the heads of those departments and agencies, in 
    connection with the inaugural proceedings and ceremonies; and
        (2) may accept gifts and donations of goods and services to 
    carry out its responsibilities.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

R.C., a child

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No s . 4D 13

- 341, 4D13

- 508, 4D13

- 509 and 4D13

- 1466

[ February 11, 2015 ]

Consolidated a ppeal s from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Elijah H. Williams , Judge; L.T. Case
No s

. 12004936DL00A, 12004023DL00D, 12002835DLC, 11009402DLD, 11009638DL00A and 12000152DL00B

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender , West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Monique Rolla, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
A juvenile appeals an order adjudicating him delinquent after his plea of no con test to multiple charges. Although not requested at the plea or disposition hearing, a subsequent order recites that appellant had preserved the right to appeal the prior order finding him competent to proceed in all of his cases. It does not state that the order was dispositive. Indeed, an order finding a defendant competent to proceed is not a dispositive order. See Fuller v. State , 748 So. 2d 292, 294 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1999) ( a n issue is dispositive only when, regardless of the outcome of the appeal, the re will be no trial ; a n order determining defendant competent has no such effect, as trial proceeds)

. In Burns v. State

, 884 So. 2d 1010, 1012

- 13 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2004), we explained that a competency issue relates to the voluntary and intelligent nature of a plea, which is among the limited issues which may be appealed from a plea, but not without moving to withdraw the plea first. We have applied this preser vation rule to juvenile proceedings in P.R.T. v. State , 920 So. 2d 708, 709 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2006) citing State v. T.G.

, 800 So. 2d 204, 210 (Fla. 2001) (“[J]uveniles2

pleading guilty

. . . may directly appeal an involuntary plea only if it is preserved by a m otion to withdraw plea in the trial court.”). As appellant failed to file a motion to withdraw his plea, he has not preserved the issue for review.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER , G ROSS and C IKLIN , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**In The**

***Court of Appeals***

***Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont***

_____________________ _____

**09-16-00379-CR**

**09-16-00380-CR**

**09-16-00381-CR**

__________________________

_________________________________________________________________ 

**On Appeal from the 410th District Court**

**of Montgomery County, Texas**

**Trial Cause Nos. 08-01-00886-CR and 08-01-00889-CR (Counts 1 and 2)**

_________________________________________________________________ 

**ORDER**

Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the instant appeal is frivolous. *See Anders v. California*, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel certified that counsel provided copies of the motion and brief to Appellant, advised Appellant of Appellant’s right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied Appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. *See Kelly v. State*, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Appellant requested access to the appellate record with this Court. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial court to provide access to a paper copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to provide written verification to this Court of the date and manner in which the appellate record was provided, on or before **February 23, 2017**. *See id.*, 436 S.W.3d at 321-22.

ORDER ENTERED January 24, 2017.

               PER CURIAM

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of The New Home Company Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wayne Stelmar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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.





Date: March 27, 2014/s/ Wayne StelmarWayne StelmarChief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director (Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS BEING MADE TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), WHICH CARRIES WITH IT CERTAIN CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN THE EVENT OF A
KNOWING OR WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION.

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549

      Re: Nuveen Investments, Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") of Nuveen Investments, Inc. (the "Company") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

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

            (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

Dated as of this 9th day of May 2005.

                                    /s/ Timothy R. Schwertfeger
                                    -------------------------------
                                    Timothy R. Schwertfeger
                                    Chief Executive Officer
#### New York & Baltimore Coffee Polishing Co. *v.*New York Coffee Polishing Co.

*(Circuit Court, E. D. New York.*

1882)

Contempt of Witness — Commission to Take Testimony.

An order to show cause why a witness should not bo held in contempt, asked for to lay a foundation for a motion to issue a commission to take the testimony, refused on the ground that the order to attach would bo useless, and on subsequent. motion an order was made to issue the commission.

In Equity. Order for commission to take testimony.

*Richards & Heald*and *Henry R. Starbuck,*for complainant.

*Goodrich, Deedy & Platt,*for defendant.

Appeal from taxation of costs under the decision in the above cause, made December 27,1881, (9 Fed. Rep. 578,) having been taken, that decision was so far modified as to allow no costs to the plaintiff on the demurrer. The defendant having failed to answer within the ten days given, plaintiff’s solicitor applied for an order to he served on the president of the company defendant to show cause why he should not he punished as for a contempt in not so answering, and cited *Coveny*v. *Athill,*Dick. 355, and *Lancaster*v. *Lancaster,*6 Sim. 439, stating also in open court that the sole reason for applying for the order was to lay a- foundation for a motion to issue the commission to take testimony which was prayed for in the hill. Upon this the order to show cause was refused on the ground that the order to attach the defendant would be useless, because it would not tend to establish the truth of the allegations in the bill of the complainant. Thereafter solicitor for complainant applied on notice for a commission to issue, and defendant opposed on the ground that issue had not been joined in the cause. The objection was overruled, and an order made for a commission to take the testimony of the witness named in the bill, *in perpetuara rei meraoriam,*upon written interrogatories to be attached to the commission.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 36 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 36

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                      relating to parental rights.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2016

 Mr. Graham (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Blunt, and Mr. 
Risch) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 
             and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                      relating to parental rights.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, 
education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.
    ``Section 2. The parental right to direct education includes the 
right to choose, as an alternative to public education, private, 
religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices 
within public schools for one's child.
    ``Section 3. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe 
these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as 
applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
    ``Section 4. The parental rights guaranteed by this article shall 
not be denied or abridged on account of disability.
    ``Section 5. This article shall not be construed to apply to a 
parental action or decision that would end life.
    ``Section 6. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of 
international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply 
to the rights guaranteed by this article.''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL HOLMBERG,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ELDON VAIL, Secretary DOC; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-36001

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05449-BHS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2013** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Michael Holmberg appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that

defendant Sullivan unlawfully restricted his outgoing mail. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion discovery issues. 

FILED

JAN 02 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002). We

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Holmberg’s motion

to compel additional discovery or his request to continue defendants’ summary

judgment motion until he received additional discovery because Holmberg failed to

show how the additional discovery was necessary to defeat summary judgment. 

See Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009) (denial of

continuance to conduct further discovery appropriate when the district court

considers the merits of the motion and concludes that there is no point to pursuing

the requested discovery); Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d

1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006) (requirements for obtaining additional discovery

under former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.

2002) (describing trial court’s broad discretion to deny a motion to compel). 

We reject Holmberg’s contentions regarding the applicability of Garrett v.

City & County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515 (9th Cir. 1987), and the district

court’s revocation of his in forma pauperis status.

AFFIRMED.

2 12-36001