alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Larry G. Gerdes, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Transcend Services, Inc; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by the quarterly report; 

 

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

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures for the registrant and I have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant (including its consolidated subsidiary) is made known to me by others within these entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisquarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the registrant’s internal controls which could adverselyaffect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in the internal controls; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls;and 

 

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there weresignificant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses. 

 

Date: August 4, 2003
Exhibit 35.14



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

Citibank, National Association

388 Greenwich Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|Re: | Annual Statement of Compliance for CFCRE 2016-C6 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C6
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2016 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized
officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period):

(a)    A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance 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 fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



|              
|--------------
|March 1, 2017 
|LOGO          
|BRIAN SMITH   
|Vice President



|                       |  |  |      | 
|---------------------- |  |  | ---- | 
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  |  |      | 
|                       |  |  | LOGO |
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

###### Editorial Note on Part 363

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 363 appear at 70 FR 57433, Sept. 30, 2005, 70 FR 57442, Sept. 30, 2005, and 75 FR 70815, Nov. 19, 2010.

#### §§ 363.149-363.152 [Reserved]
HomeBiographies...John Thompson

# 				John Thompson			

															Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment						Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs												

				October 14, 2019 -									Present							

Tags

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsState Department Official

Back to Top
#### Bruno Santos, Plaintiff and Appellant, *v.*Porto Rican Express Co., Defendant and Appellee.

No. 7555.

Argued November 3, 1937.

Decided January 28, 1938.

*Gelpí <& Gelpí*for appellant. *Hartzell, Kelley <& Hartzell*and *Rafael O. Fernández*for appellee.

Mr. Justice Hutchison

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question is whether this case should be tried in the District Court of Mayagüez or in the District Court of San Juan.

 Plaintiff, a dealer in firearms, doing business under the name Federal Sportcraft Co., alleged that the employees of the defendant in New York marked a certain shipment of revolvers and parts thereof as “cotton goods” and that as a result of this misrepresentation, plaintiff was subjected to an investigation by Federal and Insular government agents and suffered serious loss in the business which he carried on in Añasco, within the judicial district of Mayagüez. Defendant, a corporation organized under the laws of New York and doing business in Puerto Rico with its principal place of business in San Juan, moved for and obtained a change of venue.

The general rule is that:

> “When a foreign corporation doing business in Puerto Rico is sued in a judicial district other than the one where it has its head office it is entitled to a transfer of the action to the district in which *555its principal office is located.” *Arcelay*v. *American R.R. Co.,*38 P.R.R. 723.

Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in 1935 (Laws 174) reads in part as follows (italics onrs):

> “Section 79. Actions for the following causes must be tried *in the district where the cause, or some part thereof, arose,*subject to the like power of the court to change the place of trial:

> “1. To obtain indemnity from an insurance company, when such indemnity arises from an insurance policy contract, *or to recover damages under Sections 1803 and 1804 of the Civil Code, edition of 1902 (Sections 1802 and 1803, edition of 1930) or by virtue of any other precept of law.”*

In the instant case the cause of action arose in New York where the act which caused the damage was done, not in Añasco where the loss was sustained. 67 C.J. 94, Section 152; Id. 45, Section 56; *Woodwin Preserving Co.*v. *Davis,*258 S.W. 97; *Graves*v. *McCollum & Lewis,*193 S.W. 217; *Kalberg*v. *Greiner,*8 Pac. (2d) 799; *Jones*v. *Main Island Creek Coal Co.,*99 S.E. 462; *Steed*v. *Harvey,*54 Pac. 1011; 72 Am. St. Rep. 789, 794; *Gallup*v. *Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District,*171 Cal. 71, 151 Pac. 1142; *Fresno National Bank*v. *Court,*83 Cal. 491; *Smith*v. *Smith,*88 Cal. 572.

Hence, the case comes within the general rule, not within the exception.

The order appealed from must he affirmed.

Mr. Justice Wolf and Mr. Justice Córdova Dávila took no part in the decision of this case.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 370.10 What can cause my payments to be suspended? ( a ) *Change in deposit account.* We will suspend payments if we receive notice that your deposit account has been closed, that someone named on your deposit account is dead or has been declared legally incompetent, that there is a change in the title of your deposit account that alters your interests; or, if a corporation is the owner, that it has been dissolved.
( b ) *Change in status of owner.* We will suspend payments when we receive notice that an owner of a bond, security, or investor account is dead or has been declared legally incompetent, or in any case where we receive notice of a change in the name or status of an organization or representative named on a bond, security, or investor account.
( c ) *Continuation of suspension.* Payments will continue to be suspended until we receive satisfactory evidence as to who is authorized or entitled to receive payments.
§ 31.200 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* This regulation sets forth standards to address and manage or to prohibit conflicts of interest that may arise in connection with the administration and execution of the authorities under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), established under sections 101 and 102 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA).
( b ) *Scope.* This regulation addresses actual and potential conflicts of interest, or circumstances that give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest, that may arise from contracts and financial agency agreements between private sector entities and the Treasury for services under the TARP, other than administrative services identified by the TARP Chief Compliance Officer.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, as Chief Financial
Officer of Transcend Services, Inc., certifies that to the undersigneds knowledge, the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Transcend Services, Inc. at the dates
and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Lance Cornell      
|Lance Cornell          
|Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 11, 2006
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

###### Editorial Note on Part 363

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 363 appear at 70 FR 57433, Sept. 30, 2005, 70 FR 57442, Sept. 30, 2005, and 75 FR 70815, Nov. 19, 2010.

#### § 363.137 What do I need to know about the registration of a zero-percent certificate of indebtedness?

A zero-percent certificate of indebtedness is automatically registered in the name of the TreasuryDirect ® account owner.

[74 FR 19420, Apr. 29, 2009]
#### PEOPLE *v.*EKOLA.

Criminal Law — Appeal and Error — Record.

Upon a record which fails to show that respondent filed a motion for a new trial, or that the court was asked to give reasons for his decision thereon, and which omits the charge of the court, respondent may not review, on writ of error, the • weight of the evidence or alleged errors in charging the jury.

Exceptions before sentence from Marquette; Elannigan, J.

Submitted April 18, 1912.

(Docket No. 124.)

Decided May 3, 1912.

Gust Ekola was convicted of being accessory to the indecent exposure of the person of a patron of respondent’s saloon.

Affirmed.

*Frank A.*Bell, Prosecuting Attorney, and *M. J. Ken*nedy, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*A. W.*Jurma, for respondent.

Moore, C. J.

The respondent was convicted of lewd . and lascivious behavior, and has brought the case here upon exceptions before sentence.

*159In his brief, counsel for respondent recite at considerable length the testimony for and against the respondent. He then proceeds to say that the court erred in refusing the respondent a new trial on the ground that the conviction was contrary to all the evidence in the case. The record nowhere shows the motion which was made for a new trial, nor does it show that the court was requested to file any reasons for overruling the motion if he did so, or that the judge filed any reasons for so doing. Counsel also quote a portion of the charge of the court and say:

> “ It should have been explained by the judge what preponderance of evidence means.”

The record does not show the charge of the court, nor does it show whether the attention of the court was called to the present claim of counsel. This being the situation, we cannot say that any error was committed.

The action of the court below is affirmed, and the case remanded.

Steers,. McAlvay, Brooke, Blair, Stone, and Ostrander, JJ., concurred. Bird, J., did not sit.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00617-CV

In re Keith Russell Judd

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Keith Russell Judd, an inmate in federal prison, has filed a pro se petition for writ of

mandamus, asking this Court to compel the district court to rule on his various motions for

declaratory and injunctive relief against the Texas Secretary of State. Judd has failed to provide

copies of these motions or specify when they were filed, but he claims in his petition that the

motions relate to his unsuccessful attempt in 2011 to be placed “on the State’s 2012 Presidential

Primary Election Ballot as a Democratic Candidate for President of the United States,” to remove

President Barack Obama from that ballot for being “not a natural born citizen,” and “to allow all

convicted and incarcerated felons to vote” in the 2012 elections.

Judd filed a similar petition for writ of mandamus in 2011, which this Court denied

because, on the record provided, we could not determine whether the district court had abused

its discretion in regard to any pending motion or whether Judd would lack an adequate

appellate remedy in that event. See In re Judd, No. 03-11-00690-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS, at *1

(Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 16, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). We similarly cannot determine
on this record whether Judd is entitled to mandamus relief. For this and other reasons, we deny

Judd’s petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Henson

Filed: December 7, 2012

2
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Transcend Services, Inc., certifies that to
the undersigneds knowledge, the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Transcend Services, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Larry G. Gerdes    
|                       
|Larry G. Gerdes        
|Chief Executive Officer



Date: April 30, 2004
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Poolingand Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2016, by and among WELLS FARGOCOMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS LLC, as Special Servicer, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, WILMINGTONTRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, LLC,as Operating Advisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer with respect toCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2016-C37 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
ATLANTIC OCEAN

BATHYMETRIC MAP VEATCH CANYON

VEATCH CANYON
NOS NJ 19-2

sarirwcree
Mnnt0D a”

low waren

maecton
39799.

#### HALL v. HOBBS.

Decided November 20, 1962.

*47
      *Jack D. Evans,*for plaintiff in error.

*Stevens & Stevens, B. J. Stevens,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

Special ground 1 of the amended motion for new trial complains that the ruling of the court in refusing to invoke the rule upon timely request prior to allowing the defendant’s witnesses to testify in court under oath before the jury was stricken denied to the plaintiff a substantial and positive right. We must agree with this position. The fact that the witnesses were sequestered at a later stage of the trial did not cure the error. They had already heard each other testify under oath a few minutes previously on the question of damages to the plaintiff’s car and each may have been “taught” by the testimony the others gave. “The practice of separating witnesses or, as generally called, ‘putting under the rule,’ is of ancient origin and salutary in the proper administration of justice, the object being, of course, to prevent one witness from being taught by another as to the testimony he should give. . .

The mandate of the law is that *in all cases*either party shall have the right to have the witnesses of the other party examined out of the hearing of each other, and, hence, the rale is applicable and mandatory in an interlocutory hearing for injunction. . . . It is no answer to the violation of the mandatory rule to say that the record does not show any harm to have resulted to the defendants because of this error, since it has been held in numerous cases that, whenever the rights of a party are withheld or violated, the presumption of law is that he has been injured unless the contrary plainly appears.” *Poultryland, Inc. v. Anderson,*200 Ga. 549, 561, 562 (37 SE2d 785), and cases therein cited; *Montos v. State,*212 Ga. 764 (95 SE2d 792). Under this mandate, we think that the parties are entitled to the benefit of this rule at all stages of the proceedings in the trial of a *48case, regardless of the purpose of the testimony, and the error in depriving the plaintiff in this case of this substantial right rendered all subsequent proceedings nugatory, requiring the grant of a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
<PAGE>
                                  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 Avanir Pharmaceuticals (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory
P. Hanson, Chief Financial 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, 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.

                                    /s/Gregory P. Hanson, CMA
                                    ------------------------------------
                                    Gregory P. Hanson, CMA
                                    Chief Financial Officer

                                    August 13, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AVANIR Pharmaceuticals and will
be retained by AVANIR Pharmaceuticals and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission upon request.
#### § 30.5 Q-5: How does a TARP recipient comply with the requirements under § 30.4 (Q-4) of this part that the compensation committee discuss, evaluate, and review the SEO compensation plans and employee compensation plans to ensure that the SEO compensation plans do not encourage the SEOs to take unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the TARP recipient, or that the employee compensation plans do not pose unnecessary risks to the TARP recipient?

At least every six months, the compensation committee must discuss, evaluate, and review with the TARP recipient's senior risk officers any risks (including long-term as well as short-term risks) that the TARP recipient faces that could threaten the value of the TARP recipient. The compensation committee must identify the features in the TARP recipient's SEO compensation plans that could lead SEOs to take these risks and the features in the employee compensation plans that pose risks to the TARP recipient, including any features in the SEO compensation plans and the employee compensation plans that would encourage behavior focused on short-term results and not on long-term value creation. The compensation committed is required to limit these features to ensure that the SEOs are not encouraged to take risks that are unnecessary or excessive and that the TARP recipient is not unnecessarily exposed to risks.