alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.3





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Ashford Hospitality Prime, Inc. and Subsidiaries


Dallas, Texas


We have issued our report dated March 16, 2017, with respect to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Ashford Inc. on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, and incorporated by reference in the amended Annual Report of Ashford Hospitality Prime, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the years then ended.  We have also issued our report dated March 8, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Ashford Quantitative Alternatives Master Fund, L.P. (previously, “AIM Real Estate Hedged Equity Master Fund, L.P.”) for the year ended December 31, 2015, and our report dated March 8, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Ashford Quantitative Alternatives (U.S.), L.P. (previously, “AIM Real Estate Hedged Equity (U.S.) Fund, L.P.”), for the year ended December 31, 2015.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Ashford Hospitality Prime, Inc. (Nos. 333-209389, 333-200420 and 333-200718) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-194968 and 333-204705) on Form S-8.











/s/ BDO USA, LLP


Dallas, Texas


March 16, 2017
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE

#### Janet Young v. Tama Waddell and City of Danville

October 24, 2002

Case No. 00-215CL

By Judge Joseph W. Milam, Jr.

On October 16, 2002, the parties appeared before this court on the plaintiffs objection to portions of Dr. Urbaniak’s deposition testimony. The plaintiff argues that Dr. Urbaniak’s testimony beginning on page 51, line 20, and concluding on page 56, line 17, of the Urbaniak deposition constitutes an improper attempt to introduce the opinions of Drs. Cohen and Spencer at trial. Specifically, the plaintiff relies upon Virginia Code § 8.01-401.1 and *McMunn v. Tatum,*237 Va. 558, 379 S.E.2d 908 (1989), as support for his motion to strike Dr. Urbaniak’s testimony as it relates to the reports of Drs. Cohen and Spencer.

As an initial matter, the plaintiffs reliance on *McMunn*to support his assertion that portions of Urbaniak’s cross-examination testimony are inadmissible as hearsay is misplaced. Section 8.01-401.1 permits an expert witness to render an opinion that is based on data that may not be admissible in evidence. The section expressly provides that the opposing attorney may, during cross-examination, question the witness regarding the language or content of the data underlying the witness’s opinion.

The plaintiff next asserts that the reports of Drs. Cohen and Spencer are not admissible under § 8.01-401.1. Section 8.01-401.1 permits the attorney to *265question an expert on cross-examination about language or content otherwise inadmissible, provided that the expert consulted or relied upon such content in forming his opinion. Dr. Urbaniak repeatedly stated that he neither consulted nor relied upon the reports of Drs. Cohen and Spencer.

The defendant says the doctors’ reports are not offered for the truth of the matters asserted therein. The defense argues that the reports are instead offered to ascertain the extent of Dr. Urbaniak’s awareness of and reliance upon the findings of Drs. Cohen and Spencer. A declaration not offered for the truth of the matter asserted is not excluded by the hearsay rule. Here, the defendant does not attempt to argue substantively the contents of the doctors’ reports. Dr. Urbaniak’s testimony with respect to these findings concerns his access to the reports, not their content. For this reason, his testimony is not hearsay and is admissible.

As a practical matter, the defendant has elsewhere indicated the defendant’s intention to introduce into evidence the findings of both Dr. Cohen and Dr. Spencer. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s objection concerning the above-mentioned portion of Dr. Urbaniak’s deposition testimony is denied.
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT

OCTOBER 31, 2000

**THE AAL U.S. GOVERNMENT ZERO**
BG

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0253

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KENT ALLEN TICHENOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for an extension of time, and good 

cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including 

June 21, 2022, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

05/19/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0253

FILED

Bowen Greenwood

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF MONTANA

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

May 20 2022

05/20/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0253
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19121]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR17-24-000]


Valero Energy Corporation; Valero Marketing and Supply Company; 
Notice of Emergency Request for Temporary Waiver

    Take notice that on September 5, 2017, Valero Energy Corporation 
and Valero Marketing and Supply Company, filed a request that the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), under its emergency 
powers pursuant to section 1(15) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 
U.S.C. App. 1(15), allow, or if necessary direct, Colonial Pipeline 
Company to temporarily waive any and all RVP product specifications for 
conventional and reformulated gasoline that are inconsistent with the 
Environmental Protection Agency's August 31, 2017 Fuel Waiver, as more 
fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public 
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the 
Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a 
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any 
FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c1a190e1f1332303532390f292c2c332e281c3a392e3f723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="91d7d4c3d2defffdf8fff4c2e4e1e1fee3e5d1f7f4e3f2bff6fee7">[email protected]</span></a>, or call 
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 7, 2017.

    Dated: September 5, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19121 Filed 9-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D16-772

_____________________________

JONATHAN ARN BRYANT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

John T. Brown, Judge.

January 11, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, RAY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Victor D. Holder, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 10.3

                        3rd AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE

     This 3rd Amendment to Promissory Note (the "3rd Amendment") is made
December 9, 2011, by and between Domark International, Inc. (the "Company") and
Infinite Funding, Inc. (the "Holder").

     WHEREAS, on March 3, 2011, the Company entered into a Promissory Note (the
"Note"),a copy of which is attached hereto, in the aggregate amount of $75,000,
with a due date of July 1, 2011;

     WHEREAS, on June 9, 2011, the Company and Holder executed an Amendment to
Promissory Note (the "Amendment"), which included an Extension Fee in the amount
of $10,000, a copy of which is attached hereto;

     WHEREAS, on September 28, 2011, the Company and Holder executed a 2nd
Amendment to Promissory Note (the "2nd Amendment"), a copy of which is attached
hereto;

     WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the 2nd Amendment, the Note is due on or
before December 15, 2011;

     WHEREAS, as of the date hereof, the Company has not made payments on the
Note;

     WHEREAS, on December 9, 2011, the Company and Holder agreed to amend
certain provisions of the Note;

     NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

     1.   EXTENSION OF DUE DATE OF NOTE. The Parties agree that the Due Date of
          the Note shall be extended to April 15, 2012.

     2.   EXTENSION FEE. The Parties agree that a fee in the amount of $20,000
          will be added to the principal balance of the loan in consideration
          for the extension granted herein.

     3.   PRINCIPAL BALANCE. Upon signing of this Amendment, the aggregate
          principal balance due under the Note shall be $105,000.

     4.   EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this Agreement shall be December
          9, 2011.

     All other provisions of the Note and of the Amendment remain in force.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Holder hereby execute this
Agreement as of the date first written above.

DOMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.                    INFINITE FUNDING, INC.


By: /s/ R. Thomas Kidd                        /s/ Alina Yurovskay
    --------------------------------          ----------------------------------
    R. Thomas Kidd                            Alina Yurovskay
    Chairman                                  President

GUARANTOR


By: /s/ R. Thomas Kidd
    --------------------------------
    R. Thomas Kidd
    An Induvidual
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

I, Leah Nivison, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the GS Mortgage Securities Trust2013-GC13 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Actperiodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicershave fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteriafor asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange ActRules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNRPartners, LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator and Custodian, TriMontReal Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant,and National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant.

 

Dated: March 23, 2018

 

/s/ Leah Nivison

 

Chief Executive Officer

(senior officer in charge of securitizationof the depositor)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                      
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars                
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998          
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998    
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998    
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1    
<CASH>                               795,322   
<SECURITIES>                               0    
<RECEIVABLES>                      7,207,400   
<ALLOWANCES>                         245,000            
<INVENTORY>                          679,081   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   8,928,372   
<PP&E>                             4,661,014   
<DEPRECIATION>                     1,041,390   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    26,664,739   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              6,436,033   
<BONDS>                            6,403,065   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0   
<PREFERRED>                                0   
<COMMON>                             117,574   
<OTHER-SE>                        13,689,797   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      26,664,739   
<SALES>                            2,393,036   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  10,064,408   
<CGS>                              2,183,908   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      9,728,353   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   313,929   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       42,267   
<INCOME-TAX>                          12,339   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   29,928   
<DISCONTINUED>                             0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0   
<CHANGES>                                  0   
<NET-INCOME>                          29,928   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .00   
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .00       
        


</TABLE>
SEMT 2013-8

 

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

 

I, Jeremy P. Strom, certify that:

 

1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-8 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.	Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.	Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.	Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5.	All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (“CoreLogic”), American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, “Assurant”), Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, CitiMortgage, Inc. as Master Servicer, Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr. Cooper Master Servicing, as Master Servicer, Computershare Trust Company, N.A. as Custodian, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent.

 

Date: March 30, 2023

 

 

/s/ Jeremy P. Strom

Signature

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

 

----
Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement - Matthew Hairford



 Exhibit 10.14 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Second Amendment (the
“Amendment”) to that certain employment agreement between Matador Resources Company, a Texas corporation (“Matador”), acting through its Board of Directors, and Matthew Hairford (“Employee”) dated
August 9, 2011, as previously amended (collectively, with the prior amendment, the “Agreement”) is entered into and effective as of December 1, 2011. 

WHEREAS, Matador and Employee previously entered into the Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, Matador and Employee desire to modify the timing of the increase in base salary of the Employee and to modify the timing
of any payment to be made pursuant to Section 14(b) of the Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, Matador and Employee hereby
agree to amend the Agreement as follows, effective as of the date hereof: 
  

	1.	The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Agreement is restated in its entirety to provide as follows: 


Effective December 1, 2011, Employee shall receive an annualized salary of $275,000 per year, payable in installments
in accordance with Matador’s then standard payroll practices, or such higher compensation as may be established by Matador from time to time (“Base Salary”). 

 

	2.	Section 14(b) of the Agreement is restated in its entirety to provide as follows: 


(b) If Employee’s employment is terminated by the Company for a reason other than as described in
Section 14(a) or (c), or is terminated by Employee for Good Reason pursuant to Section 12(g), the Company shall (i) pay to Employee all Accrued Obligations as required under applicable wage payment laws and in accordance with the
Company’s customary payroll practices, and (ii) subject to Employee’s compliance with Sections 8 and 9, pay to Employee severance pay in an amount equal to one and one-half (1.5) times his then-current Base Salary as of the Date
of Termination, plus one and one-half (1.5) times an amount equal to the average annual amount of all bonuses paid to Employee with respect to the prior two (2) calendar years, in a lump sum, subject to Section 16(b), on the sixtieth
(60th) day following the Date of Termination.
Employee shall have no obligation to seek other employment, and any income so earned shall not reduce the foregoing amounts. 

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Matador and Employee have duly executed this Amendment to be effective
as of the date set forth above. 
  

			
	MATADOR RESOURCES COMPANY
		
	By:	 	/s/ Joseph Wm. Foran
		 	Joseph Wm. Foran
		 	Chairman of Board and Chief Executive Officer


  

	
	EMPLOYEE
	
	/s/ Matthew Hairford
	Matthew Hairford, individually


 Signature Page 

  
 2
#### Rosalee A. Abbott1
      *vs.*Michael A. Virusso, Jr.

February 15, 2008.

*Divorce and Separation,*Modification of judgment, Child custody. *Minor,*Custody. *Parent and Child,*Custody of minor. *Probate Court,*Custody of child. *Practice, Civil,*In camera review.

*Thomas Paul Gorman*for the plaintiff.

*India L. Minchoff (Stephen J. Kuzma*with her) for the defendant.

Also known as Rosalee A. Virusso.

This case is before us for further appellate review. The Appeals Court, in a divided decision, vacated a judgment of the Probate and Family Court denying a divorced mother’s request that she be permitted to remove her son from Newton to Tucson, Arizona. *Abbott*v. *Virusso,*68 Mass. App. Ct. 326 (2007). The relevant facts and procedural background are set forth in the Appeals Court’s opinion. The court held, among other things, that the record did not reflect whether the probate judge had given adequate consideration to the mother’s interests, as custodial parent, when determining whether the proposed move would be in the best interests of the child. *Id.*at 332-334, quoting *Yannas*v. *Frondistou-Yannas,*395 Mass. 704, 710 (1985) (“[Bjecause the best interests of a child are so interwoven with the well-being of the custodial parent, the determination of the child’s best interest requires that the interests of the custodial parent be taken into account”). The court remanded the case to the Probate and Family Court “for further hearing so that findings may be made ... as to all of the relevant interests,” adding that “[i]t is within the judge’s discretion to consider evidence regarding the current circumstances of the parties and the son.” *Abbott*v. *Virusso, supra*at 339.

Upon careful review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, we conclude, as did the Appeals Court, that the judgment must be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings at which all of the relevant interests are to be considered and weighed. We reach this result for essentially the same reasons articulated by the Appeals Court. Further, as the Appeals Court directed, any in camera interviews of the child or his sibling on remand must be recorded. Finally, and again for the reasons correctly stated by the Appeals Court, the separate report of the probate judge must be discharged as improper.

*So ordered.*
Submitted April *4,*

reversed May 28, 2008

#### In the Matter of W. D., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*W. D., *Appellant.*

Multnomah County Circuit Court

070463293; A135501

185 P3d 555

Lance D. Perdue filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and M. Ann Boss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman, Judge, and Ortega, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*310PER CURIAM

In this mental commitment case, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that, because of a mental disorder, appellant is a danger to others. ORS 426.005(l)(d)(A). The state concedes that the evidence is legally insufficient. On *de novo*review, we agree that the evidence is insufficient to support involuntary commitment.

Reversed.