alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 34.3



LOGO



|                                                        |  |      |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- |  | 
|REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM |  | LOGO

Board of Directors and Shareholders

Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation

We have examined
managements assertion, included in the accompanying Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria (Managements Report), that Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation (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 Mortgage Loans Platform (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017,
excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(ii), 1122(d)(2)(iv)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform.
The Platform consists of the asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management in Schedule 1 of Managements Report. 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 Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017 for the Residential Mortgage Loans Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.



|                  
|------------------
|LOGO              
|                  
|Irvine, California
|March 15, 2018    

Grant Thornton LLP

U.S. Member
firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd.
Amendment 2012-1 to Employment agreement



 Exhibit 10.18 
 AMENDMENT 2012-1 
 TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT 2012-1 (the “Amendment”), dated as of December 14, 2012 (the “Effective Date”), is entered into by and between Antares Pharma, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), and Kaushik Dave (“Executive”). 
 RECITALS 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive previously entered into an Employment Agreement, dated March 3, 2008 (the “Existing
Employment Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Existing Employment Agreement to
clarify that the actual annual bonus paid to Executive may be greater than Executive’s target annual bonus; and 
 WHEREAS,
Section 10 of the Existing Employment Agreement provides that the Existing Employment Agreement may be amended pursuant to a written agreement approved by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) and executed on its
behalf by a duly authorized officer (other than Executive) and Executive. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and Executive hereby
agree that, subject to Board approval, effective as of the Effective Date, the Existing Employment Agreement shall be amended as follows: 
 1. Section 2.2 of the Existing Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “(b) Bonus. In addition to the Executive’s Base Salary, the Executive shall be eligible to receive a bonus for each calendar year during the Term, based on attainment of certain
individual and corporate performance goals and targets (the “Annual Bonus”). The target amount of the Executive’s Annual Bonus shall be 35% of Base Salary. The performance goals and targets shall be determined by the
Compensation Committee in consultation with the CEO. Once determined, the applicable performance goals and targets shall be communicated to the Executive as soon as reasonably practicable following the Compensation Committee’s determination of
the applicable goals and targets. The actual Annual Bonus amount paid will be based upon the Compensation Committee’s determination, in its sole discretion, whether and to what extent the applicable performance goals and targets have been
achieved, and such amount may be more or less than the target amount, as determined by the Compensation Committee in its sole discretion. Any Annual Bonus earned and payable to the Executive hereunder shall be paid on or after January 1 but not
later than March 15 of the calendar year following the calendar year for which the Annual Bonus is earned.” 
 2. In
all respects not amended, the Existing Employment Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed. 
 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, subject to Board approval, the Company and Executive agree to the terms
of the foregoing Amendment, effective as of the Effective Date. 
  

			
	ANTARES PHARMA, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Paul K. Wotton
	Name:	 	Dr. Paul K. Wotton
	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	/s/ Kaushik Dave
	Kaushik Dave



  
 2
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18871]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF670


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Spiny Dogfish 
Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting to review 2018 
specifications and management measures and make any appropriate 
recommendations.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, September 20, 2017, from 9 
a.m. to 11 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via webinar: http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/spinydogmc-2017/. Call-in information is 
provided upon logging onto the webinar.
    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. 
State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 
526-5255. The Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org will also have details 
on the proposed agenda and briefing materials.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 
Council's Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting 
to review 2018 specifications and management measures and make any 
appropriate recommendations. Spiny dogfish is in multi-year 
specifications for 2016-18 but the specifications are reviewed 
annually. Public comment will be taken.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should 
be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior 
to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 31, 2017.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-18871 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |  |                                            |                         
|---- |  |  | ------------------------------------------ | ------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |                                            | Corporate Trust Services
|     |  |  | MAC R1204-010                             
|     |  |  | 9062 Old Annapolis Road Columbia, MD
21045
|     |  |  |                                            | Tel: 410 884 2000       
|     |  |  |                                            | Fax: 410 715 2380       

Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich
Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|RE: | Annual Statement of Compliance for Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-7 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-7
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2014 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized
officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such
officers supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 1, 2016



|              
|--------------
|LOGO          
|Kristen Cronin
|Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
**Exhibit 31.2**RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION     I, Kendall W. Rieman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,2007 of Croghan Bancshares, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: October 26, 2007 /s/  Kendall W. Rieman   Kendall W. Rieman, Treasurer   (Principal Financial Officer)  
21
CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY

#### Kailish N. Agarwal v. Jyoti P. Das

December 20, 2000

Case No. (Law) 23940

By Judge James H. Chamblin

After consideration of the argument of counsel on December 1,2000, and the subsequent memoranda filed by counsel, it is ordered that the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied and the Defendant’s oral motion made on December 1, 2000, for an extension of time in which to respond to the Plaintiffs First Request for Admissions is granted.

Summary judgment is a drastic remedy. This case has not proceeded past the pleading stage. There is no prejudice to the Plaintiff to grant an extension to respond to the Defendant. Further, the Defendant has a fair argument that the facts sought to be admitted have been disputed by the Defendant in this case before the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was filed. Also, the failure to obtain an admission that the Defendant in fact signed the check is fatal because Va. Code §§ 8.01-27 *etseq.*requires the check to be signed “by the party who is to be charged.”

There is no requirement for the Plaintiff to specifically plead the law that might be applicable to this case. During the course of litigation, either party may raise the issue that the law of a jurisdiction other than Virginia might be applicable to this case and ask the Court to decide the issue.

It is further ordered that the Defendant shall file his grounds of defense and responses to the Plaintiffs First Request for Admissions on or before January 12, 2001.

*601All exceptions to these rulings for the reasons stated at oral argument and in the memoranda are duly noted. Endorsements are dispensed with under Rule 1:13. Let the Clerk forward a certified copy hereof to counsel of record.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 136 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 136

Expressing support for the designation of May 1, 2015, as ``Silver Star 
                         Service Banner Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 16, 2015

  Mr. Blunt (for himself and Mrs. McCaskill) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for the designation of May 1, 2015, as ``Silver Star 
                         Service Banner Day''.

Whereas the Senate has always honored the sacrifices made by the wounded and ill 
        members of the Armed Forces;
Whereas the Silver Star Service Banner has come to represent the members of the 
        Armed Forces and veterans who were wounded or became ill in combat in 
        the wars fought by the United States;
Whereas the Silver Star Families of America was formed to help the people of the 
        United States remember the sacrifices made by the wounded and ill 
        members of the Armed Forces by designing and manufacturing Silver Star 
        Service Banners and Silver Star Flags for that purpose;
Whereas the sole mission of the Silver Star Families of America is to evoke 
        memories of the sacrifices of members of the Armed Forces and veterans 
        on behalf of the United States through the presence of a Silver Star 
        Service Banner in a window or a Silver Star Flag flying;
Whereas the sacrifices of members of the Armed Forces and veterans on behalf of 
        the United States should never be forgotten; and
Whereas May 1, 2015, is an appropriate date to designate as ``Silver Star 
        Service Banner Day'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate supports the designation of May 1, 2015, 
as ``Silver Star Service Banner Day'' and calls upon the people of the 
United States to observe the day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, 
and activities.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6608
EARL LINWOOD GREGORY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. BOYERS; C. H. BYERS, Sergeant; C. D. BUTLER, Corporal; J. FRIDLEY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MINTER; CHARLES T. CUNNIFF, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-94-473-R) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 29, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Linwood Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of several Defendants, leaving one Defendant remaining in the case. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
#### HE LIN, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-60830.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 24, 2008.

He Lin, Portland, CT, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, John Clifford Cunningham, Saul Greenstein, Holly Michele Smith, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

He Lin, a native and citizen of China, has filed a pro se petition for review of the *620Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings as time and number-barred. Lin specifically contends that he should be permitted to file a new asylum application pursuant to INA § 208(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D), which provides an exception to the one-year filing deadline for asylum applications.

This provision governs asylum applications only and is not applicable to the reopening of removal proceedings. INA § 208(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Rather, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) expressly applies to aliens under final orders of removal seeking to apply or reapply for asylum. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Lin could not avail himself of INA § 208(a)(2)(D) because the provision does not apply to aliens under final orders of removal. *See Alaska Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA,*540 U.S. 461, 489 & n. 13, 124 S.Ct. 983, 157 L.Ed.2d 967 (2004).

Because Lin does not assert that the BIA abused its discretion in finding that he did not meet the time and number limitation exceptions outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), we decline to consider the issue. *See Thuri v. Ashcroft,*380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Lin’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
GEORGANNA L. SIMPSON, P.C.

ATTORNEY AT LAW

1349 EMPIRE CENTRAL DRIVE

WOODVIEW TOWER, SUITE 600

DALLAS, TEXAS 75247-4042

PHONE 214-905-3739 $ FAX 214-905-3799

 GEORGANNA L. SIMPSON 

EMAIL: georganna@glsimpsonpc.com

OF COUNSEL:

ELIZABEETH HEARN

December 9, 2015 

Ms. Debra K. Autrey Via E-Filing

Clerk, 6th Court of Appeals 

Bi-State Justice Building 

100 North State Line Ave. #20 

Texarkana, Texas 75501 

Re: In re Tara Brook Tyndell

 Court of Appeals: 06-15-00086-CV

Dear Clerk: 

Today Ms. Beth Hearn presented oral argument on behalf of Real Parties in Interest Jennifer and 

John Nowell. Ms. Hearn’s bar number and contact information is as follows: 

Beth M. Hearn

Attorney at Law

SBN 24078022 

555 Republic Dr., Ste. 200 

Plano, TX 75074 

Phone: 469-509-6253 

Fax: 469-519-4253 

beth@bhearnlegal.com

I apologize for not providing this information to you sooner. 

Cordially, 

/s/ Georganna L. Simpson 

Georganna L. Simpson 

Cc: Client

ACCEPTED

06-15-00086-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

12/9/2015 3:28:13 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/9/2015 3:28:13 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk