alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.2  LOGO 2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123) Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) dated as of November 1, 2016 by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage
Securities, Inc. as Depositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, LLC as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations
Reviewer, Citibank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee, relating to the Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-C3, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2016-C3 (CGCMT 2016-C3) The undersigned, a
duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the Special Servicer) herein certifies to the following:  1.
All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.  2.
A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018
through December 31, 2018 (the Reporting Period), under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.  3.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof
has been specifically identified herein.  Certified by:

/s/ Adam Singer





Date:   March 1, 2019Adam Singer, Managing Director
#### § 31.3201-1 Measure of employee tax.

The employee tax is measured by the amount of compensation received for services rendered as an employee. For provisions relating to compensation, see § 31.3231(e)-1. For provisions relating to the circumstances under which certain compensation is to be disregarded for the purpose of determining the employee tax, see paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of § 31.3231(e)-1.

[T.D. 8582, 59 FR 66189, Dec. 23, 1994]
EXHIBIT
31.1














RULE
13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002







I, J.
Randolph Potter, certify that:





1.
    I
      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Summit Financial
      Corporation;

2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
      and have:
a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

b)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
      covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and
5.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of
      directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a)
    All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control
      over financial reporting.
Date:
      May 11, 2005J.
      Randolph Potter, President and Chief Executive
Officer
#### § 403.59 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 211 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 211

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a technical 
               correction in the enrollment of H.R. 3060.
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 211

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3060) to implement the 
Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives shall make the following technical 
correction: In section 201(a)(1) strike ``paragraphs (1) through (9) of 
subsection (a) as paragraphs (3) through (11)'' and insert in lieu 
thereof ``paragraphs (1) through (10) of subsection (a) as paragraphs 
(3) through (12)''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 10, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 31.3402(g)-3 Wages paid through an agent, fiduciary, or other person on behalf of two or more employers. ( a ) If a payment of wages is made to an employee by an employer through an agent, fiduciary, or other person who also has the control, receipt, custody, or disposal of, or pays the wages payable by another employer to such employee, the amount of the tax required to be withheld on each wage payment made through such agent, fiduciary, or person shall, whether the wages are paid separately on behalf of each employer or paid in a lump sum on behalf of all such employers, be determined upon the aggregate amount of such wage payment or payments in the same manner as if such aggregate amount had been paid by one employer. Hence, under either the percentage method or the wage bracket method the tax shall be determined upon the aggregate amount of the wage payment.
( b ) In any such case, each employer shall be liable for the return and payment of a pro rata portion of the tax so determined, such portion to be determined in the ratio which the amount contributed by the particular employer bears to the aggregate of such wages.
( c ) For example, three companies maintain a central management agency which carries on the administrative work of the several companies. The central agency organization consists of a staff of clerks, bookkeepers, stenographers, etc., who are the common employees of the three companies. The expenses of the central agency, including wages paid to the foregoing employees, are borne by the several companies in certain agreed proportions. Company X pays 45 percent, Company Y pays 35 percent and Company Z pays 20 percent of such expenses. The amount of tax required to be withheld on the wages paid to persons employed in the central agency should be determined in accordance with the provisions of this section. In such event, Company X is liable as an employer for the return and payment of 45 percent of the tax required to be withheld, Company Y is liable for the return and payment of 35 percent of the tax and Company Z is liable for the return and payment of 20 percent of the tax. (See § 31.3504-1, relating to acts to be performed by agents.)
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 42

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding

Presidential election voting rights for residents of United States territories.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States regarding Presidential election voting rights for

residents of United States territories.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

•HJ 42 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United

3 States to vote in the election for President and Vice Presi4 dent shall not be denied or abridged by the United States

5 or by any State on account of residency in a territory of

6 the United States.

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to en8 force this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
#### In the Matter of Abdullah Y. Salahuddin, Appellant, v Glenn S. Gourd, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[804 NYS2d 825]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Benza, J.), entered November 9, 2004 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from engaging in conduct entailing the threat of violence. The determination resulted from his involvement, along with five others, in the assault of another inmate in December 2000. Petitioner commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination, which was confirmed by this Court in April 2002 *(Matter of Salahuddin v Selsky,*293 AD2d 900 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 614 [2002]). In the meantime, during July and December 2001, three of the inmates who were also involved in the assault successfully obtained administrative reversals of the prison disciplinary determinations finding them guilty of charges arising from this incident. After unsuccessfully seeking administrative reconsideration of his adverse disciplinary determination, petitioner commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to have it overturned, citing the administrative reversals granted to the *788three other inmates. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding, finding that it was precluded by res judicata. Petitioner appeals.

We affirm. “[T]he doctrine of res judicata bars a cause of action that was raised and adjudicated, or which could have been raised and adjudicated, in a prior action or proceeding” *(Matter of Burgess v Goord,*285 AD2d 753, 755 [2001]). In the case at hand, petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the prison disciplinary determination. Petitioner, however, already challenged the evidentiary basis of this determination in the prior proceeding *(see Matter of Salahuddin v Selsky, supra*at 900). Consequently, Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding based on res judicata. In any event, we note that the administrative reversals rendered in the three other cases would not mandate reversal of petitioner’s prison disciplinary determination because the circumstances giving rise to reversal in those matters are not present herein.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND FOR THE
THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       6,374,213
<SECURITIES>                                39,524,981
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,343,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,421,052
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,156,652
<PP&E>                                      18,200,262
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              72,971,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,443,190
<BONDS>                                      2,537,092
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       23,870,293
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       335,826
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,784,741
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                72,971,142
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,280,790
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,130,923
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,633
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,108,551)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,108,551)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,108,551)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edgardo Rodriguez-Ortiz, Appellant.

[802 NYS2d 622]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered February 18, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s waiver of his right to áppeal encompasses his present constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender *(see People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; *People v Figueroa,*13 AD3d 163 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 798 [2005]). Were we to find that this issue was not waived, we would find it to be unpreserved and, in any event, without merit *(see People v Rosen,*96 NY2d 329 [2001], *cert denied*534 US 899 [2001]). Defendant’s mandatory sentence was based entirely on his prior convictions *(see Almendarez-Torres v United States,*523 US 224 [1998]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-23-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-29-1997
<CASH>                                           8,181
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  124,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     29,116
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               196,426
<PP&E>                                       1,356,490
<DEPRECIATION>                                 720,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,075,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          151,996
<BONDS>                                        489,443
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           439
<OTHER-SE>                                     394,387
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,075,972
<SALES>                                         88,561
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               736,746
<CGS>                                           52,781
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  503,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,951
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                104,062
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,584
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             63,478
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    63,478
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.50
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 20 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 20

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 27 (legislative day, February 22), 1995

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for ceremonies as part 
   of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the 
                               Holocaust.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used from 8 o'clock 
ante meridiem until 3 o'clock post meridiem on April 27, 1995, for 
ceremonies as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of 
victims of the Holocaust. Physical preparations for the ceremonies 
shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the 
Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 23, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>     5

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          56,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,808,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,919,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,133,000
<PP&E>                                         529,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,035,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,339,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       283,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,413,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,035,000
<SALES>                                      6,991,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,991,000
<CGS>                                        3,407,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,649,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (411,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (654,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (654,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (654,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)





</TABLE>
#### J.A.O. Acquisition Corp. et al., Appellants, v Jeffrey D. Stavitsky et al., Defendants, and First Union National Bank, Formerly Known as CoreStates Bank, N.A., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[803 NYS2d 527]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered October 6, 2004, which, in an action arising out of plaintiffs purchase of stock, granted defendant bank’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*201Plaintiffs claim of negligent misrepresentation was properly dismissed for lack of evidence demonstrating “the necessary link” sufficient to evince defendant’s understanding that plaintiff was relying on defendant’s payoff letter to determine whether to proceed with the transaction *(see Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood,*80 NY2d 377, 383-384 [1992]). Even assuming the necessary link, no issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff relied on the information contained in the payoff letter. As this Court noted in its prior decision in this matter (18 AD3d 389, 391 [2005]), although plaintiff was aware that certain foreign receivables were not backed by letters of credit and therefore not properly includable in its lender’s availability calculation, it included them anyway, causing the transaction to proceed in violation of its lender’s excess availability requirement. Here, similarly, plaintiff was or should have been aware that for some time prior to the closing the subject company had been experiencing a negative cash flow, and thus should not have been surprised that the excess availability requirement could not be met on the date of the closing. Plaintiffs’ argument that they would not have entered into the transaction had they been aware of the outstanding checks that were not included in the payoff amount, and therefore known that excess availability requirement was not met, is belied by the record. Plaintiffs’ failure to establish reasonable reliance also serves to defeat their fraud claims. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.