alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.2







LOGO

2017 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, Inc. 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, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (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, 2018
|              |  | Adam Singer, Managing Director |  |  |  |
www.gpo.gov

### §286e–6. Vote against establishment of Council

The United States Governor of the Fund is directed to vote against the establishment of a Council authorized under Article XII, Section 1 of the Fund Articles of Agreement as amended, if under any circumstances the United States’ vote in the Council would be less than its weighted vote in the Fund.

(July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §26, as added Pub. L. 94–564, §1, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2660.)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John Anthony HERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-55332.

D.C. No. CR-94-00942-MLH

CV-00-02204—MLH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 17, 2002.

Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Hernandez's request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM**

Federal prisoner John Anthony Hernandez appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, challenging his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, *Sanchez v. United States,*50 F.3d 1448, 1451-52 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm.

Hernandez contends that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2314, — L.Ed.2d — (2002). *See also United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes,*282 F.3d 664 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                        2,584
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              134,367
<PP&E>                        176,874
<DEPRECIATION>                2,328,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                311,241
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         4,012,555
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      11,308,336
<OTHER-SE>                    (15,012,610)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  311,241
<SALES>                       1,777,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,777,673
<CGS>                         1,798,202
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,275,561
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            66,123
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (1,543,766)
<INCOME-TAX>                  971,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (2,514,766)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.36)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-23-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-30-1997
<CASH>                                          11,943
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,124
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     43,912
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               191,629
<PP&E>                                       1,305,490
<DEPRECIATION>                                 682,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,041,567
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          158,407
<BONDS>                                        459,889
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           439
<OTHER-SE>                                     380,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,041,567
<SALES>                                         36,912
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               471,981
<CGS>                                           20,497
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  320,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 64,828
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,283
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,545
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,545
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .93
        

</TABLE>
§ 57.8 Tax treatment of fee. ( a ) *Treatment as an excise tax.* The fee is treated as an excise tax for purposes of subtitle F (sections 6001-7874). Thus, references in subtitle F to “taxes imposed by this title,” “internal revenue tax,” and similar references, are also references to the fee. For example, the fee is assessed (section 6201), collected (sections 6301, 6321, and 6331), enforced (section 7602), and subject to examination and summons (section 7602) in the same manner as taxes imposed by the Code.
( b ) *Deficiency procedures.* The deficiency procedures of sections 6211-6216 do not apply to the fee.
( c ) *Limitation on assessment.* The IRS must assess the amount of the fee for any fee year within three years of September 30th of that fee year.
( d ) *Application of section 275.* The fee is treated as a tax described in section 275(a)(6) (relating to taxes for which no deduction is allowed).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Juvenile Male G.L., Appellant.

No. 02-1152.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 14, 2002.

Filed June 20, 2002.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

*841PER CURIAM.

G.L., a juvenile male, was charged with kidnapping, first degree burglary, larceny, and aggravated sexual abuse. G.L. allegedly broke into and burglarized the home of a female resident of the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation before he sexually assaulted the resident, abducted her in her own car, and drove her to a remote part of South Dakota where he beat her to death and disposed of her body. An experienced law enforcement official testified the victim’s murder was the worst violent crime death he had seen. The district court* granted the government’s 18 U.S.C. § 5032 motion to try G.L. as an adult, and G.L. appeals.

The presumption that juveniles be tried in juvenile court is not absolute. When deciding whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult, a district court must consider the six factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 5032 and balance “the likelihood of rehabilitation before the juvenile reaches majority with the risk of harm to the public from treating violent crime more leniently.” *United States v. Juvenile J.G.,*139 F.3d 584, 586 (8th Cir.1998). Here, the district court made extensive findings of fact: G.L.’s behavior has been excessively violent since at least third grade and he has not attended school since fifth grade; G. L. has used illegal drugs since fifth grade and is now a daily user of alcohol and illegal drugs; G.L.’s mother encouraged him to engage in burglary and shared in his profits; G.L. is a “habitual commercial and residential burglar” and a “hardened and very experienced criminal.” *United States v. G.L.,*No. CR01-1002, slip op. at 3-8, (D.S.D. Dec. 31, 2001). Although G.L.’s criminal record is limited, the district court suggested this is mainly because G.L.’s extensive illegal activity has not been prosecuted. *Id.*at 7. The district court stated that of the hundreds of juvenile delinquents it has seen, “I have not previously seen such a defiant and calloused young person in court.... No [juvenile treatment] facility could undo in the next five years what this defendant has learned and learned well over the course of his lifetime.” *Id.*at 7,11.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the government’s motion to try G.L. as an adult. Thus, we affirm the decision of the district court.

*

 The Honorable Charles B. Kommann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.7508-1 Time for performing certain acts postponed by reason of service in a combat zone. ( a ) *General rule.* The period of time that may be disregarded for performing certain acts under section 7508 applies to acts described in section 7508(a)(1) and to other acts specified in a revenue ruling, revenue procedure, notice, or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter).
( b ) *Effective date.* This section applies to any period for performing an act that has not expired before December 30, 1999.
[T.D. 8911, 65 FR 78411, Dec. 15, 2000]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1026 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1026

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
  the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

                                 An Act

 
To designate the United States Post Office building located at 201 East 
Pikes Peak Avenue in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as the ``Winfield Scott 
                         Stratton Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Post Office building located at 201 East Pikes 
Peak Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Winfield Scott Stratton Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Winfield Scott Stratton Post 
Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Mary Kennedy et al., Respondents, v Winston A. Brown, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 408]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated December 14, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The reports of the defendant’s examining physician largely failed to set forth the objective tests which were performed to *626support his conclusion that neither of plaintiffs suffered from any limitation of range of motion *(see Zavala v DeSantis,*1 AD3d 354 [2003]; *Black v Robinson,*305 AD2d 438 [2003]; *Urbanski v Mulieri,*287 AD2d 710 [2001]). In addition, although the doctor “ascribe[s] the degree of range of motion in certain areas to some objective testing, he does not compare [either of the plaintiffs’] range of motion with a normal range of motion” *(Bent v Jackson,*15 AD3d 46, 49 [2005]; *see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]). Accordingly, under these circumstances, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., supra; Bent v Jackson, supra; Urbanski v Mulieri, supra).*Consequently, the burden never shifted to the plaintiffs to raise a triable issue of fact, and we need not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion *(see Trantel v Rothenberg,*286 AD2d 325 [2001]; *Papadonikolakis v First Fid. Leasing Group,*283 AD2d 470 [2001]).

Thus, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.23


Salaries and
Bonuses of Named Executive Officers


The following table sets forth for each person to be
identified as a Named Executive Officer in the Company’s Proxy Statement for
its 2007 Annual Meeting of Stockholders such person’s annual salary
effective January 1, 2007 and discretionary bonus for 2006 approved by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors in October 2006 and paid in
January 2007:


	
  Name of Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  Bonus for 2006

  	
   

  	
  Salary for 2007

  	
   

  
	
  Leonard P. Shaykin

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  250,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  370,000

  	
   

  
	
  Martin M. Batt

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  100,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  270,000

  	
   

  
	
  Gordon Link

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  100,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  240,000

  	
   

  
	
  Kai P. Larson

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  75,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  220,000

  	
   

  
	
  Patricia A. Pilia*

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  







*The employment of Dr.
Pilia by the Company was terminated effective February 23, 2006.
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6222(b)-1 Notification to the Internal Revenue Service when partnership items are treated inconsistently. ( a ) *In general.* The statement identifying an inconsistency described in section 6222(b)(1)(B) shall be filed by filing the form prescribed for that purpose in accordance with the instructions accompanying that form.
( b ) *Effective date.* This section is applicable to partnership taxable years beginning on or after October 4, 2001. For years beginning prior to October 4, 2001, see § 301.6222(b)-1T contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 1, 2001.
[T.D. 8965, 66 FR 50546, Oct. 4, 2001]
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. ES09-31-001] 

Take notice that on July 28, 2009, Entergy Texas, Inc. filed a supplement providing additional explanation to its April 30, 2009 application. 

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, 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 Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. 

                    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 14 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 e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 7, 2009.                 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-19130 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Richard Rubin, CEO, CFO and
Chairman of American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc, a Delaware corporation, hereby makes the
following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
with respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2008.

The undersigned certifies that the above
quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above report fairly presents, in
all respects, the financial condition of American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc. and results of
its operations.

Date: May 14, 2008/s/ Richard RubinCEO, CFO and Chairman
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 132 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con. Res.132
                                            Agreed to September 25, 1996

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                          Concurrent Resolution

 
    Relating to the trial of Martin Pang for arson and felony murder.

Whereas it is alleged that Martin Pang intentionally started a 
  warehouse fire in Seattle, Washington on January 5, 1995, that killed 
  four firefighters;
Whereas shortly thereafter Martin Pang fled to Brazil from where he was 
  extradited to the United States on March 1, 1996;
Whereas the extradition decision of the Supreme Court of Brazil states 
  that Martin Pang should stand trial in the United States only for 
  arson and not for felony murder; and
Whereas it is accepted international practice in extradition cases for 
  the executive authorities of the requested state to grant consent for 
  prosecution of offenses other than those for which the fugitive was 
  extradited: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that in the interests of justice 
and furthering good relations between the United States and Brazil, the 
Government of Brazil should grant its consent to prosecution of Martin 
Pang for both arson and felony murder.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```