alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.14  LOGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1050-084, 8th Fl
401 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334  ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2016, by and among Morgan Stanley
Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, C-III Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association,
as Trustee and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series, 2016-BNK2 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not
otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 11.09 of the Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton,
Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:  1.
A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2018 (the Reporting Period) , and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and  2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.  LOGOLeslie Hayton Managing Director
Wells Fargo Bank    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

LOGO
### 74285072722 BRUX120223590795322 K3XB25

X X Page 1 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

### X 

## X Page 2 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 

## X
X X X X X Page 3 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## X

XXX 

## X XXX 

## X 202066 IES Sanitized.pdf 

### XXX 

## X See Attachment 001 (DPE Heavies Structure Sanitized.doc)
DPE Heavies Structure Sanitized.doc Page 4 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONXXX

XXX XXX 

## X X X Page 5 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 6 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 7 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONAromatic distillation bottoms

XXX XXX 

### X Page 8 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

### XXX XXX 

## X

Destuctive Use XXX 

### X XXX 

### X XXX 

### X XXX XXX XXX XXX 

### X
Page 9 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## X XXX XXX XXX 

## X X Albemarle Corporation - Magnolia South Plant 2270 Highway 79 South Magnolia Columbia County AR 71754-0729

Page 10 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONSee Attachment 002 (BRU DPE Heavies Manufacturing Process Sanitized.doc)

BRU DPE Heavies Manufacturing Process Sanitized.doc Page 11 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONXXX XXX XXX 2 4 0.2 

### X X

Page 12 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## X XXX 

## X

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 

### X X XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 

### X X

Page 13 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## X

XXX 

## X Page 14 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONP10SB1(a)(4)1 Part II, Section B, 1(a)(4). Operation Site Locations

XXX

Page 15 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 16 SANITIZED SUBMISSIONPage 17 SANITIZED SUBMISSION001 DPE Heavies Structure Sanitized DPE Heavies Structure Sanitized.doc Pt.I, Sec.B, 1e. 2 002 BPE Heavies Manufacturing Process Sanitized BRU DPE Heavies Manufacturing Process Pt.2, Sec.A, 1d. 2 003 IES Sanitized IES Sanitized.pdf Pt.I, Sec.B, 1c. 1

Page 18 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## X Estimate

Page 19 SANITIZED SUBMISSION

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 001 Attachment Name DPE Heavies Structure Sanitized 

## Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.I, Sec.B, 1e. Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number BRUX120223590795322

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 002 Attachment Name BPE Heavies Manufacturing Process Sanitized 

## Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.2, Sec.A, 1d. Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number BRUX120223590795322

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 003 Attachment Name IES Sanitized 

## Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.I, Sec.B, 1c. Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number BRUX120223590795322
# Jurnalul Oficial C 64E/2007

| | ISSN 1830-3668 |
| --- | --- |
| Jurnalul Oficial
  al Uniunii Europene | C 64E |
| | |
| Ediţia în limba română | Comunicări şi informări | Anul 5020 martie 2007 |

ISSN 1830-3668

Jurnalul Oficial

al Uniunii Europene

C 64E

Ediţia în limba română

Comunicări şi informări

Anul 5020 martie 2007

---

| Informarea nr. | Cuprins | Pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Acte pregătitoare |
| | Consiliu |
| 2007/C 064E/01 | Poziția comună (CE) nr. 1/2007 adoptată de Consiliu la 11 decembrie 2006, hotărând în conformitate cu procedura menționată la articolul 251 din Tratatul de instituire a Comunității Europene, în vederea adoptării unei Directive a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului de stabilire a unui cadru de omologare a autovehiculelor și a remorcilor acestora, precum și a sistemelor, a componentelor și a unităților tehnice separate destinate vehiculelor respective (directivă-cadru) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Informarea nr.

Cuprins

Pagina

III   Acte pregătitoare

Consiliu

2007/C 064E/01

Poziția comună (CE) nr. 1/2007 adoptată de Consiliu la 11 decembrie 2006, hotărând în conformitate cu procedura menționată la articolul 251 din Tratatul de instituire a Comunității Europene, în vederea adoptării unei Directive a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului de stabilire a unui cadru de omologare a autovehiculelor și a remorcilor acestora, precum și a sistemelor, a componentelor și a unităților tehnice separate destinate vehiculelor respective (directivă-cadru) (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text cu relevanță pentru SEE |

---

(1)   Text cu relevanță pentru SEE

1

| RO | |
| --- | --- |

RO

---

III Acte pregătitoare

Consiliu

| 20.3.2007 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | CE 64/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2007

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

CE 64/1

---

POZIȚIA COMUNĂ (CE) Nr. 1/2007

adoptată de Consiliu la 11 decembrie 2006

în vederea adoptării Directivei 2007/.../CE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului de stabilire a unui cadru de omologare a autovehiculelor și a remorcilor acestora, precum și a sistemelor, a componentelor și a unităților tehnice separate destinate vehiculelor respective („directivă-cadru“)

(Text cu relevanță pentru SEE)

(2007/C 64 E/01)

În urma adoptării actului legislativ final, versiunea în limba română a acestuia va fi publicată în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene în paralel cu celelalte limbi comunitare.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Schrader, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 613]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered August 6, 2003, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for resentencing by a different judge.

The sentencing court’s remarks demonstrated that it improp*586erly considered crimes of which the defendant was acquitted as a basis for sentencing *(see People v Reeder,*298 AD2d 468 [2002]; *People v Innis,*288 AD2d 236 [2001]; *People v Santiago,*277 AD2d 258 [2000]). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for resentencing before a different judge. Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
H. J. Res. 111

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

Joint Resolution

Providing for the appointment of Anne D’Harnoncourt as a citizen regent of the

Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance

with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States

(20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress,

occurring by reason of the expiration of the term of Samuel Curtis

Johnson of Wisconsin on December 4, 1995, is filled by the appointment of Anne D’Harnoncourt of Pennsylvania. The appointment

is for a term of six years and shall take effect on December 5,

1995.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 32.2
                                                               ------------


             STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
             SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      The undersigned, Deborah A. McLaughlin, is the Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Slade's Ferry Bancorp. (the
"Company"). This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing
by the Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

A)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
      78o(d)); and

B)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
      Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the
Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the
Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It
is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

Date:  August 13, 2004                 /s/ Deborah A. McLaughlin
       ---------------                 ------------------------------------
                                       Deborah A. McLAughlin
                                        Chief Financial Officer/Chief
                                       Operating Officer


<PAGE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lamont Coleman, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 851]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D’Amico, J.), rendered April 3, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and robbery in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be *1034and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence imposed on robbery in the third degree and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Erie County Court for resentencing on count three of the indictment.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law former § 130.50 [1]), sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65 [1]), and robbery in the third degree (§ 160.05). Defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because “there is reason to believe that [he] did not understand the question County Court was asking him.” Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 736 [1998]; *People v Moissett,*76 NY2d 909, 910-911; *People v Brown,*281 AD2d 962 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 899 [2001]). Nevertheless, the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the legality of the sentence *(see People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 9 [1989]). Here, the certificate of conviction and sentencing minutes establish that defendant was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender on the conviction of robbery in the third degree. That sentence is illegal, however, because the crime of robbery in the third degree is not a violent felony offense *(see*Penal Law § 70.02 [1] [c]; *People v Harris,*304 AD2d 355, 356 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 582 [2003]; *People v Malone,*102 AD2d 737 [1984]). Thus, we modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed on robbery in the third degree, and we remit the matter to County Court for resentencing on count three of the indictment.

Finally, the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence *(see Hidalgo,*91 NY2d at 737). In any event, we conclude that the sentence with respect to sodomy and sexual abuse is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
###### 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.

#### § 301.6803-1 Accounting and safeguarding.

In cases coming within the provisions of section 6802 (2) and (3) and paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 301.6802-1, the district director may require a bond in such amount as he deems advisable, conditioned for the faithful return, whenever so required, of all quantities or amounts of adhesive stamps undisposed of and for the payment monthly for all quantities or amounts of adhesive stamps sold or not remaining on hand. Such bond shall be furnished in accordance with the provisions contained in section 7101 and § 301.7101-1.
www.gpo.gov

### §1116. Distribution of funds of Miami Indians of Indiana; persons entitled

The funds on deposit in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Miami Indians of Indiana that were appropriated by the Act of September 30, 1961 (75 Stat. 747), to pay a judgment in Indian Claims Commission docket numbered 124–A, and the interest thereon, after payment of attorney fees and expenses, shall be distributed to the individuals whose names appear on the roll prepared pursuant to section 1113 of this title, and in accordance with the instructions contained in sections 1118 and 1119 of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–659, §6, Oct. 14, 1966, 80 Stat. 909.)

#### References in Text

Act of September 30, 1961, referred to in text, is act Sept. 30, 1961, Pub. L. 87–322, 75 Stat. 747. That portion of the act which appropriated the funds referred to was not classified to the Code.

The Indian Claims Commission, referred to in text, terminated Sept. 30, 1978. See Codification note set out under former section 70 et seq. of this title.
#### § 31.3123-1 Deductions by an employer from remuneration of an employee.

Any amount deducted by an employer from the remuneration of an employee is considered to be part of the employee's remuneration and is considered to be paid to the employee as remuneration at the time that the deduction is made. It is immaterial that any act of Congress or the law of any State requires or permits such deductions and the payment of the amount thereof to the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof.
#### THE MILLE LAC BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA v. THE UNITED STATES.

[47 C. Cls. R., 415; 229 U. S. R., 498.]

*On the defendants appeal.*

The question in this case is simply this: Whether under article 12 of the treaty 11th March, 1863, was there reserved to, the Indians a continuing right to occupy the ceded lands “ *so long as they shall not in any way interfere with or in any manner molest the persons or property of the whites,"*or was there merely a right of occupancy in the nature of a license, terminable at the pleasure of the Government, entitling the actual occupants, and no others, to the value of their restricted occupancy?

The court below decides:

I. To ascertain the legal relations of the six bands of Chippewas with the United States and with each other, the court examined at length the *Treaties 22d February, 1855*(10 Stat. L., p. 1165), *11th March, 1863*(12 id., p. 1249, art. 12), *7th May, 1864*(13 id., p. 693, art. 12), and *19th March, 1867*(16 id., p. 739) ; also the *acts 4th July, 1884*(23 id., p. 76, 98), *15th May, 1886*(24 id., p. 44), *14th January, 1889*(25 id., p.. 642), *22d July, 1890*(26 id., p. 290), *19th December, 1893*(28 id., 570), *27th May, 1898*(30 id., p. 745), *27th May, 1902*(32 id., p. 268).

II. The proviso to article 12 of the treaty of 1863 declared “ *that ■ owing to the heretofore good conduct of the Mille Lae Indians they shall not be compelled to rernove so long as they shall not in any way interfere with or in any manner molest*
      *512
      *the persons or- property of the whites.”*It reserved to the Indians the right to occupy their lands under the conditions named, and was more than a mere license or favor or occupancy at sufferance. A conceded right of occupancy can not be reconciled with the doctrine of a limited tenure by license.

III. The consideration for the proviso to article 12 of the treaty of 1863 was the services rendered to the United States by the Mille Lae Band in refusing to join and in assisting to prevent an Indian uprising in the midst of the Civil War. The language of the proviso can not be interpreted in any other way than the granting of a right of occupancy under the conditions named.

IY- The Mille Lac Indians as a band were authorized to bring this suit by the *jurisdictional act, 15th February, 1909*(35 Stat. L., p. (519), but the act does not repeal or modify the *act llpth January, 1889*(25 id., p. 642, § 7), which provides that the distribution of funds derived from the sale of Chippewa land shall embrace “ *all the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota.”*

The decision of the court below is remanded for a reassessment of damages on the ground that the court below gave no effect to the proviso to section 6 of the act March 4, 1890.

June 9, 1913.

Mr. Justice Van Devanter

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
39509.

#### GRANT v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. ANTHONY v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.

39510.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

Where upon the trial of these condemnation cases which were tried separately the jury in each case found a verdict for the defendant in a specified amount, *104and where thereafter the defendant in each case made a motion for a new trial on the usual general grounds which motion in each case was approved by the trial judge in an order setting it down for a hearing on a day certain thereafter which order provided that if the motion were not heard at that time it would be heard at such time and place as fixed by further order of the court, and which order further provided that the movant should have until the final hearing of the case whenever it may be had to prepare and present for approval a brief of the evidence; and where the hearing on the motions was regularly continued in accordance with the law and finally came on to be heard, at which time counsel for both the parties were present and it appearing that movant had neither filed nor presented for approval a brief of the evidence and no brief being tendered to the court at that time for approval, the court did not err in granting the motion of counsel for plaintiff to dismiss the defendant’s motion for a new trial. *Baker v. Johnson & Harris,*99 Ga. 374 (27 SE 706); *Pinnebad v. Pinnebad,*129 Ga. 267 (58 SE 879); *Sewell v. Sewell,*148 Ga. 473 (96 SE 1037); *Holeman v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia,*182 Ga. 457 (185 SE 696); *Foster v. Jones,*208 Ga. 320 (66 SE2d 743); *Varner v. Thompson,*49 Ga. App. 136 (174 SE 383); *Powell v. Weeks,*52 Ga. App. 316 (183 SE 75); *Wilson v. Brazzeal,*62 Ga. App. 693 (9 SE2d 717).

Decided May 23, 1962.

*J. Willard Register,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Foley, Chappell, Young & Hollis, B. H. Chappell,*contra.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0406

_________________

MONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED, MONTANA 

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER, 

TROUT UNLIMITED, EARTHWORKS, 

and AMERICAN RIVERS,

 Plaintiffs and Appellees,

 v.

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and TINTINA 

MONTANA INC.,

 Defendants and Appellants,

 AND

STATE OF MONTANA, by and through THE 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, and 

MEAGHER COUNTY AND BROADWATER 

COUNTY,

 Defendants-Intervenors and Appellants.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

oral argument before the Court sitting en banc and is hereby set for argument on 

Wednesday, June 21, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. in the courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, 

Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to M. R. App. P. 17(3), oral argument 

times in this cause number shall be forty (40) minutes for the Appellants and thirty (30) 

minutes for the Appellees.

Counsel should be mindful of the provisions of M. R. App. P. 17(6).

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Katherine M. Bidegaray, District Judge.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 28 2023

04/28/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0406
www.gpo.gov

### §286e–5b. Acceptance of amendments to Articles of Agreement of the Fund

The United States Governor of the Fund may agree to and accept the amendments to the Articles of Agreement of the Fund as proposed in the resolution numbered 45–3 of the Board of Governors of the Fund that was approved by such Board on June 28, 1990.

(July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §57, as added Pub. L. 102–511, title X, §1001, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3357.)
Order filed August 14, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00381-CR

____________

KENTON FRYER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 21st District Court

Bastrop County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16,029

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was originally due June 18, 2018. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 35.1. On June 19, 2018, this court ordered the court reporter to file the 

record within 15 days. In response, the court reporter sought an extension of time 

to file the record. The extension was granted in part through August 6, 2018. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). The record has not been filed with the court. Because the 

reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.
We order Margaret Raiford, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal on or before September 13, 2018. No further extension will be 

entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are 

jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.3(c). If Margaret Raiford does not timely file the record as ordered, 

we may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine 

the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM