alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                        18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GTECH Holdings Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 23, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the "Report"), I, W.
Bruce Turner, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C section 1350, as adopted pursuant to sections 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.

                                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION

Date: January 2, 2003                      By /s/ W. Bruce Turner
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           W. Bruce Turner
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 35.4  LOGO225 Franklin Street 
18th Floor 
Boston, MA 02110 
T 877.526.3562 
ngkf.com Officers Certificate Pursuant to the requirements of the applicable Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, for which Midland Loan Services, a
Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, and Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank, as Primary Servicer, the undersigned, Ronald Steffenino, a Senior Managing Director of Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a
Newmark Knight Frank, hereby certifies subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, solely in his capacity as an officer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:  1.
A review of the activities of the Primary Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the Reporting
Period) and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and  2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Primary 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 31st day of January, 2019.  Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight
FrankLOGORonald Steffenino Senior Managing
Director, Servicing and Asset Management BPC d/b/a NKF Primary Servicer for Midland




---

LOGO ScheduleI Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates; Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank as Primary Servicer:  COMM 2014-CCRE 17 COMM 2014-GC24 COMM
2015-CCRE23 COMM 2015-GC30 COMM 2015-LC19 CGCMT 2016-C3 CCRESG 2016 HEAT CGCMT 2017-C4 BMARK 2018 B3 UBS 2018 C12 UBS 2018 C8 MSCI 2018
H4
 COMM 2014-CCRE19 COMM 2014-UBS4 COMM 2015
CCRE27 GSCCRE 2015-HULA COMM 2015-LC21 CFCRE 2016-C7 CCUBS 2017-C1 UBS 2017-C5 MSCI 2018 L1 UBS 2018 C14 UBS 2018 C9
   BPC d/b/a NKF Primary Servicer for
Midland
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re:          Annual Statement of Compliance for J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial MortgageSecurities Trust 2016-NINE Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,Series 2016-NINE

 

Per the Trust and ServicingAgreement dated as of September 26, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)           A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of itsperformance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;and

 

(b)          To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
§ 0.202 Conformance with policy and subordination to authority. ( a ) Employees are required to comply with the lawful directives of their supervisor and other management officials.
( b ) Employees shall be familiar and comply with regulations and published instructions that relate to their official duties and responsibilities.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 195 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 195

 Recognizing the end of slavery in the United States, and the true day 
                 of independence for African-Americans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 1996

 Miss Collins of Michigan (for herself, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mrs. 
  Clayton, Mr. Filner, Mr. Frazer, Mr. Pete Geren of Texas, Mr. Gene 
   Green of Texas, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mrs. 
 Schroeder, Ms. Waters, Mr. Payne of New Jersey, Ms. Brown of Florida, 
  Mr. Thompson, Mr. Jefferson, Ms. Norton, and Mrs. Meek of Florida) 
 introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the end of slavery in the United States, and the true day 
                 of independence for African-Americans.

Whereas ``Juneteenth'' celebrations have been held informally for over 130 years 
        to commemorate the strong survival instincts of African-Americans who 
        were first brought to this country stacked in the bottoms of slave ships 
        during a month-long journey across the Atlantic Ocean known as the 
        ``Middle Passage'';
Whereas the Civil War was fueled by the economic and social divide caused by 
        slavery;
Whereas on January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation 
        Proclamation, the enforcement thereof occurred only in those Confederate 
        States under the control of the Union Army;
Whereas on January 31, 1863, Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment to the 
        Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States and its 
        territories;
Whereas on April 9, 1865, when General Robert E. Lee surrendered on behalf of 
        the Confederate States at Appomattox, the Civil War was nonetheless 
        prolonged in the Southwest;
Whereas news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached each State at different 
        times;
Whereas the Emancipation Proclamation was not enforced in the Southwest until 
        June 19, 1865, when Union General Gordon Granger landed at Galveston, 
        Texas, to present and read General Order No. 3;
Whereas former slaves in the Southwest began celebrating the end of slavery and 
        recognized ``Juneteenth Independence Day''; and
Whereas ``Juneteenth'' allows us to look back on the past with an increased 
        appreciation for the strength of the men, women, and children who for 
        generations endured unspeakable cruelties in bondage: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the end of slavery in the 
United States should be celebrated and recognized.
```
Exhibit 32.2

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, JeanPierre Dallaire, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
SarbanesOxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: July 1, 2008



/s/ Jean-Pierre DallaireJean-Pierre DallairePrincipal Financial and Accounting Officer
#### Pepi Schafler, Formerly Known as Pepi Summer, Respondent, v HSBC Bank USA, Formerly Known as Marine Midland Bank, N.A., Appellant, and Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[803 NYS2d 924]

Appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered August 16, 2004. The amended judgment awarded plaintiff $127,635.26 against defendants.

It is hereby ordered that the amended judgment so appealed *1084from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted in its entirety and the amended complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: We agree with defendant HSBC Bank USA, formerly known as Marine Midland Bank, N.A. (HSBC), that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and instead should have granted in its entirety the cross motion of HSBC for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against it. HSBC established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting documentary proof that plaintiff has been fully compensated for the $47,600 withdrawn by her former spouse from their account, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact (see *generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In view of our determination herein, we conclude that the amended complaint must be dismissed in its entirety (see *generally Hecht v City of New York,*60 NY2d 57, 61-62 [1983]). Present—Scudder, J.P., Martoche, Pine, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1476 KA 11-02346 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

JOHN D. WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA, LLP, BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch, J.), rendered January 3, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the judgment insofar as it imposed sentence is unanimously dismissed and the judgment is otherwise affirmed.

Entered: February 1, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

ReferenceisherebymadetothatcertainPoolingandServicingAgreementdatedas of November 1, 2015, by and amongMorgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Master Servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as SpecialServicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Trust Advisor, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCertificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent andCustodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass- Through Certificates Series2015-C27 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement,I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services dohereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision,and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executedthis Certificate as of the 28th dayof February2018.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|
#### Schylar PARKS, individually and the class he represents, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LOCATING, INC., a Washington corporation, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 01-35007.

D.C. No. CV-99-01488-TSZ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 6, 2002.

Decided June 17, 2002.

Before BRUNETTI, TROTT, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Schylar Parks, individually and on behalf of a class of employees, sued Locating, Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201*et seq.*Locating pays its employees a straight hourly wage with a guaranteed minimum of pay for 40 hours. Parks argues that overtime must be compensated at time and a half, under 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). Locating asserts its system satisfies the “Fluctuating Workweek” requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 778.114, such that its payment of a straight hourly wage for overtime is simply a generous overtime premium under that system. Because “all the facts indicate that an employee is being paid for his overtime hours at a rate no greater than that which he receives for nonovertime hours,” 29 C.F.R. § 778.114(c), we reverse and remand with a direction to enter summary judgment in the employees’ favor on this issue.

The undisputed evidence indicates that Locating’s employees were paid a straight hourly wage, not a fixed salary covering all hours worked. Locating’s attempts to re-characterize the scheme as one that satisfied the Fluctuating Workweek are unavailing. An agreement to compensate a minimum of forty hours is not the same as an agreement to pay a fixed salary for all hours worked, nor can extra overtime payments cure a basic failure to meet the requirements of § 778.114. *Brennan v. Valley Towing Co.,*515 F.2d 100, 103, 106 (9th Cir.1975). Also, any agreement to pay a fixed salary for all hours worked requires a “clear mutual understanding of the parties,” 29 C.F.R. § 778.114(a), not present here. As in *Brennan,*‘While appellees’ position is imaginative, it ignores the established principle that the ‘regular rate’ is not a hypothetical construction but an ‘actual fact.’ ” *Id.*at 105 (quoting *149 Madison Ave. Corp. v. Asselta,*331 U.S. 199, 204, 67 S.Ct. 1178, 91 L.Ed. 1432 (1947)).

Further, as Locating apparently admits, compensatory time off is not an alternative to adequate overtime pay. 29 U.S.C. § 207(o)(l). Thus, Parks is also entitled to prevail in challenging the use of compensatory time off in lieu of overtime for the emergency locating work.

REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

*902TROTT, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

For the reasons given by Judge Zilly, I would affirm.

*

 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roosevelt Mack, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 11]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J., at suppression hearing; Lewis Bart Stone, J, at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 22, 2004, convicting defendant of crim*221inal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The totality of relevant factors supports the conclusion that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. The radioed message reported a drug buy at a described location, and that there were two perpetrators, one who was wearing a black jacket and the other who was wearing a black jacket, a black knit cap and brown pants. Since defendant was found within seconds at the specific location, met the latter description, and was the only person present who fit that description, the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop him *(see e.g. People v Ferguson,*5 AD3d 250 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 640 [2004]; *People v Rampersant,*272 AD2d 202 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 870 [2000]). Moreover, defendant was found a short distance from the other suspect, who was wearing a black jacket as described. Although defendant challenges the officer’s assertion that defendant was the only person in the subway station who fit the description at issue, the court’s determination crediting the officer’s testimony is supported by the record. Defendant’s remaining argument concerning events that transpired at the suppression hearing would not entitle him to a new trial, which is the only remedy defendant requests on appeal *(see People v Vega,*276 AD2d 414 [2000]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying, without further inquiry, counsel’s eve-of-trial motion to be relieved, since counsel failed to establish good cause *(see People v Linares,*2 NY3d 507 [2004]). We note that defendant did not ask for counsel to be relieved and that there was no showing of a breakdown of communication and trust between counsel and his client *(see People v Garcia,*250 AD2d 421 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 897 [1998]; *compare People v Sides,*75 NY2d 822 [1990]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
#### § 1021.312 Identification required.

Refer to § 1010.312 of this chapter for identification requirements for reports of transaction in currency filed by casinos and card clubs.
39990.

#### MINOR v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

On August 28, 1961, the defendant was sentenced on two accusations in the City Court of Chattooga County. The first sentence provided that he was to serve twelve months in the public works camp of said county and be confined in the common jail of said county for *477six months. The sentence then provided: “However, it is ordered that the defendant be relieved of and discharged from the foregoing imprisonment upon payment of a fine of $1,000.” The sentence then provided for the serving of such sentence outside the public works camp and jail on probation. The record discloses that the fine was paid in full as provided for in such sentence. The second sentence provided for the defendant to serve twelve months in the public works camp of said county and for such sentence to run consecutively to the first sentence and provided for such sentence to be served on probation provided certain conditions were met. On December 8, 1962, the defendant was served with a rule nisi to show cause why the probation should not be revoked. *Held:*

Decided March 8, 1963.

*T. J. Espy, Jr., Archibald A. Farrar,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. Cecil Palmour, Solicitor,*contra.

1. The first sentence referred to was at best an alternative sentence which was discharged completely upon the payment of the fine, *Carter v. Johnson,*168 Ga. 688 (148 SE 590); *Cross v. Huff,*208 Ga. 392 (67 SE2d 124), and the evidence disclosed without contradiction that such fine was paid as provided for in such sentence so as to completely discharge the defendant.

2. The second sentence, which placed the defendant on probation for one year, began on the date the first sentence was pronounced and had expired before the order seeking to revoke the probation was issued, *Norman v. State,*87 Ga. App. 442 (74 SE2d 131), and the judgment revoking the probation was error.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
§ 17.160 Communications. ( a ) The agency shall take appropriate steps to effectively communicate with applicants, participants, personnel of other Federal entities, and members of the public. ( 1 ) The agency shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to afford an individual with handicaps an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a program or activity conducted by the agency. ( i ) In determining what type of auxiliary aid is necessary, the agency shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with handicaps.
( ii ) The agency need not provide individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices of a personal nature to applicants or participants in programs.
( 2 ) Where the agency communicates with applicants and beneficiaries by telephone, the agency shall use telecommunication devices for deaf persons (TDD's) or equally effective telecommunication systems to communicate with persons with impaired hearing.
( b ) The agency shall make available to interested persons, including persons with impaired vision or hearing, information as to the existence and location of accessible services, activities, and facilities.
( c ) The agency shall post notices at a primary entrance to each of its inaccessible facilities, directing users to an accessible facility, or to a location at which they can obtain information about accessible facilities. The international symbol for accessibility shall be used at each primary entrance of an accessible facility.
( d ) This section does not require the agency to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens.
In those circumstances where agency personnel believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, the agency has the burden of proving that compliance with § 17.160 would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the agency head or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the conducted program or activity and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required to comply with this section would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the agency shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maxium extent possible, individuals with handicaps receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.