alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Isiah Williams, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[612 NYS2d 985]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to a police officer. In reviewing suppression issues, we accord great weight to the determination of the hearing court with its particular advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761; *People v Treadwell,*115 AD2d 329). We conclude that the suppression court’s factual determinations are supported by the evidence and should not be disturbed. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J. — Criminal Possession Forged Instrument, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          66,495
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               133,953
<PP&E>                                          13,791
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,032)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 225,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,680
<BONDS>                                         90,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       629,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (529,117)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   225,563
<SALES>                                         56,315
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,315
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,905
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (52,590)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (52,590)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (52,590)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        




</TABLE>
$24,131,090.30
    
    March 31, 2008 (the Effective Date)
  Schedule 1 Borrower Borrowers TLC FCMC Bank Forbearance Agreement Existing Note
 Note
   PROMISE TO PAY
 Principal Sum




---



##### 



INTEREST
   MANNER OF PAYMENT; PRINCIPAL BALANCE
   SECURITY
  DEFAULT
  GENERAL PROVISIONS
  2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
 4




---



##### 



BORROWERS:Each Borrower listed on Schedule 1 attached hereto:By:
    
    /s/ Alexander Gordon JardinName:
    
    Alexander Gordon JardinTitle :
    
    Chief Executive Officer, as an authorized officer of,and on behalf of, each such Borrower listed on Schedule 1
attached hereto
 THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE BORROWERS UNDER THIS SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE ARE
GUARANTEED BY FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PURSUANT TO A GUARANTY DATED DECEMBER 28, 2007
IN FAVOR OF THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK
 REAFFIRMATION AND CONSENT OF GUARANTOR
 Bank
 FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Thomas J. AxonName:
    
    Thomas J. AxonTitle:
    
    President
 Signature Page to Second Amended and Restated Promissory Note (B-1 Note)




---



##### 



SCHEDULE 1
    
    Tribeca Subsidiaries
 
 1




---



##### 



SCHEDULE 1
    
    Tribeca Subsidiaries
 
 2
[No. 58388-3-I.

Division One.

October 1, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. C.Z.-J., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for What-com County, No. 05-8-00200-8, Martha V. Gross, J. Pro Tern., entered June 20, 2006. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12797-12798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4808]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than March 15, 2001.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (JoAnne F. Lewellen, 
Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:

[[Page 12798]]

    1. Native American Bancorporation, Co., Denver, Colorado; to engage 
through Native American Community Development Corporation, Denver, 
Colorado, in community development activities, pursuant to 12 CFR 
225.28(b)(12).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 22, 
2001.
Robert deV. Frierson
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-4808 Filed 2-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
EX-33.9
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Wells Fargo Bank, NA
Document Custody
1015-10th Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55014

ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA

Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the
"Company") is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria
set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and
Exchange Commission. The Company has determined that the servicing criteria
are applicable in regards to the servicing platform as of and for the period as
follows:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed
securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after
January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides document custody services,
excluding any publicly issued transactions issued by any government sponsored
entity (the "Platform").

Applicable Servicing Criteria: The servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d)(i)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities
performed by the Company with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable
Servicing Criteria"). Management of the Company has determined that all other
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Platform.

Period: As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2007 (the "Period").

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following
assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

1. The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

2. The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
In performing this assessment, the Company used the criteria set forth by the
Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation
AB.

3. Based on such assessment, as of and for the Period, the Company has complied
in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report
with respect to the Company's assessment of compliance as of and for the Period.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

By: /s/ Shari Gillund

Its: Senior Vice President


Dated: February 29, 2008
Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement OMB No. 1545-1800

Form 8886

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

Number, street, and room or suite no.

a

b

c

1a

Material advisor or tax shelter registration number

(9 digits or 11 digits)

1c

Name of reportable transaction

2 Identify the type of reportable transaction. Check all the box(es) that apply (see instructions).

Form 8886 (Rev. 12-2005)

 Attach to your tax return.

Cat. No. 34654G

Listed transaction

Confidential

6

If the transaction is a “listed transaction” or substantially similar to a listed transaction, identify the listed transaction (see

instructions)  

3

 See separate instructions.

(Rev. December 2005)

Name(s) shown on return Identifying number

City or town, state, and ZIP code

Contractual protection

d

e

f

Loss

Significant book-tax difference

Brief asset holding period

4

Name

Enter the number of transactions reported on this form 

If you invested in the transaction through another entity, such as a partnership, an S corporation, or a foreign

corporation, provide the information below for the entity.

5

Enter below, the name and address of each person to whom you paid a fee with regard to the transaction if that person

promoted, solicited, or recommended your participation in the transaction, or provided tax advice related to the transaction.

(Attach additional sheet, if necessary.)

Attachment

Sequence No. 137

A Enter the form number of the tax return that this form is attached to 

Enter the year of the tax return with which this form is filed 

B Check the box(es) that apply (see instructions).

Protective disclosure

1b Initial year participated in transaction

a Name 

b Type of entity 

c Form number of tax return filed 

d Employer identification number (EIN) 

Number, street, and room or suite no.

City or town, state, and ZIP code

Name

Number, street, and room or suite no.

City or town, state, and ZIP code

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions.

a

b

Initial year filer
Form 8886 (Rev. 12-2005) Page 2

Printed on recycled paper

Form 8886 (Rev. 12-2005)

Facts. Describe the facts of the transaction that relate to the expected tax benefits, including your participation

in the transaction. For listed transactions identified in item 2a, also provide the complete name, address, and

nature of involvement of all parties to the transaction (see instructions).

7

Expected tax benefits. Describe the expected tax benefits, including deductions, exclusions from gross income,

nonrecognition of gain, tax credits, adjustments (or the absence of adjustments) to the basis of property, etc.

(see instructions for more details).

8

Estimated tax benefits. Provide a separate estimate of the amount of each of the expected tax benefits

described above for each affected tax year (including prior and future years).

9
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of Personnel Management

# AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for review of an expired information collection. Procedures for Submitting Compensation and Leave Claims is used to collect information from current and former Federal employees who are submitting a claim for compensation and/or leave. OPM needs this information in order to adjudicate the claim.

                        We received no comments on our 60-day notice on Procedures for Submitting Compensation and Leave Claims, published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on November 9, 2000.                    

Approximately 100 claims are submitted annually. It takes approximately 60 minutes to compile the information needed to submit a claim. The annual estimated burden is 100 hours.

                        For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, or E-mail to                         *mbtoomey@opm.gov.*

# DATES:

Comments on this proposal should be received on or before April 2, 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

Send or deliver comments to—

Melissa A. Drummond, Program Manager, Office of Merit Systems Oversight, Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW, Room 7671, Washington, DC 20415

  and

Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, NW, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503

      ( print page 13103)    
Office of Personnel Management.

Steven R. Cohen,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 01-5056 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10-Q OF ALUMAX INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              12
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      465
<ALLOWANCES>                                        17
<INVENTORY>                                        536
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,097
<PP&E>                                           3,076
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              437
<BONDS>                                            650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,307
<SALES>                                            702
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   702
<CGS>                                              546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     1
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     45
<INCOME-TAX>                                        18
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 27
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        27
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48


</TABLE>
#### BEN RABIN, PLAINTIFF, v. JOHN K. POLLIT AND ELDEN M. SHONKA, DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division

Decided December 21, 1950.

*128
      *Mr. Harry Green,*attorney for plaintiff.

*Mr. John Alden Christie (Mr. Gerald T. Foley,*of counsel), attorney for defendants.

Daniel J. Brennan, J. S. C.

This is an application for a change of venue. The action is for slander of the plaintiff by the defendants, who are or were at the time of the alleged slander officials of the Borough of Eairlawn in the County of Bergen, the defendant Pollit the mayor thereof and Shonka a councilman.

Venue was laid in Essex County. Counsel for the defendants suggests that there is a right on the part of the defendants to have the cause tried in the county of their residence, to wit, Bergen County. In support of this viewpoint counsel for the defendants quotes in his brief what he contends is ‘the pertinent part of *Rule*3 :3-2 of the Superior Court — title Venue.

> “In actions affecting the title to real property or an interest therein possessory or otherwise, or for damages thereto, and actions of attachment the venue shall be laid by the plaintiff in the county in which any property affected is situate. *In actions by or against municipal corporations or counties or public agencies or officials the venue shall be laid by the plaintiff in the county in which the cause of action arose.”*(The italics is the court’s.)

An examination of the complaint discloses that in the first count it is alleged that the defendant Pollit is the mayor of the Borough of Eairlawn and that the defendant Shonka is a duly elected councilman of that borough, and that in the third and fourth counts reference is made to their official status. It is the court’s judgment that these defendants are sued as individuals and not in their representative capacity. *129The alleged slanderous words were uttered at public meetings in that borough on the dates stated in the complaint.

Prom its context it seems to me that the excerpt from the rule heretofore cited has reference only to those situations where public officials are sued in their capacity as such.

There is but a single case cited by learned counsel for the defendants, *Dennis and Shorts ads. Charles*Ford, *7 N. J. L.*200 *(Sup. Ct.*1824). In that ease a deputy sheriff of Sussex County was sued by a resident of Morris County and the venue was laid in Morris County. He was sued in his capacity as a civil officer and the cause for which suit was instituted was for an act in the performance of his duty as such. The court, indicating it would be a great hardship to take him out of his county, granted the application for a change of venue. Such is not the situation here. The cited case *supra*does not apply.

The motion for a change of venue isf denied, without costs.

Submit order accordingly.
EX-34.7
(logo) ERNST&YOUNG

Ernst & Young LLP
220 South Sixth Street, Ste 1400
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509

Phone: (612) 343-1000
www.ey.com



Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
U.S. Bank National Association

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report
on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the
Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
SEC's Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform
(the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, except for
servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii),
1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(iv)-(xv), which the Company has determined
are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the
servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by 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 and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions
and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the
servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the
Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota


February 12, 2008


A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JUSTIN GRIMSRUD,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Respondent

______________________ 

2017-1737

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. NY-0752-14-0340-I-1.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JOHN SILVERFIELD, Naples, FL, argued for petitioner. 

 DOMENIQUE GRACE KIRCHNER, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also 

represented by CHAD A. READLER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN,

JR., ALLISON KIDD-MILLER. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, SCHALL, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 April 11, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court