alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(logo) Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of April1, 2017 by and amongWells Fargo CommercialMortgage Securities, Inc. as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Associationas MasterServicer, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC as OperatingAdvisor andAsset RepresentationsReviewer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate AdministratorandWilmington Trust, National Associationas Trustee relating to the BANK 2017-BNK4, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2017-BNK4 **(BANK 2017-BNK4)**

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the"Special Servicer")hereincertifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activities and performanceof such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicing activities andperformance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018to December 31, 2018 (the"Reporting Period")in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement hasbeen conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligationsunder the terms of the Pooling andServicing Agreement,in all material respects for the Reporting Periodand if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specificallyidentified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director 

 

Date: March 1, 2019
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 Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection
 AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
 ACTION: General notice.
 SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1641) and the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the following Customs broker licenses and all associated permits are cancelled without prejudice. Name
License No.
Issuing portRafael I. Morales
13682
Laredo.Deborah C. Martin
11423
Los Angeles.Thomas Tello
06319
Los Angeles.Thomas Tello & Co., Inc
09841
Los Angeles.World International Freight Forwarders, Inc
04187
New Orleans.Kay Diamond, Ltd. dba Salviati & Santori
15788
New York.Pronto Cargo Brokers, Inc
06437
Miami.
 Dated: August 11, 2009. Daniel Baldwin, Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.


[FR Doc. E9-20036 Filed 8-19-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
exh10-40.htm












Exhibit 10.40









August 17, 2012







Mr. Tang Weijiao


Chief Executive Officer


Peng Tuo Information Technology Co., Ltd.


Hangzhou, China







Dear Mr. Tang,







We hope you are well.







This is to confirm our agreement for you to assist the Company in the management of the Hefei Meihua Vocational Training School, which you have been doing since approximately May 25, 2012 and which you have agreed to continue until December 31, 2012, and at the option of the Company may be extended until December 31, 2013.







In consideration of that activity, the Company has agreed to an acceleration of the payment of 100,000 shares of the Company’s common stock from Condition 3 in the Option Agreement concerning our cooperating activities, when such Agreement becomes operative, which provides that Peng Tuo Information Technology Co., Ltd.


achieves not less than $3,000,000 in pre-tax profits during any 12 month consecutive period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013.







Thank you for your assistance in this matter.







/s/ Joel Mason


Joel Mason, Chief Executive Officer


China Education International, Inc.












Accepted:







/s/ Tang Weijiao


Mr. Tang Weijiao, Chief Executive Officer


Peng Tuo Information Technology Co., Ltd.




China Education International, Inc.


100 East Linton, Suite 401A, Delray Beach, Florida
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago ESQUIVEL-VEGA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-16043.

D.C. No. CV-00-06930-REC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 13, 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, Esquivel-Vega’s request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM**

Santiago Esquivel-Vega appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition challenging the 365-month sentence imposed following his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we review de novo, *see United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes,*282 F.3d 664, 666 (9th Cir.2002), and affirm.

Esquivel-Vega contends that the rale announced in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is substantive and applies retroactively on collateral review and therefore *320his sentence is unconstitutional because it exceeds the 20-year maximum sentence under § 841(b)(1)(C). Esquivel-Vega further contends that the non-retroactivity principles of *Teague v. Lane,*489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), are not controlling.

We reject Esquivel-Vega’s contentions because they are foreclosed by our decision in *Sanchez-Cervantes,*282 F.3d at 667-68, 673 (concluding that *Teague*applies to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitions and that the new rule of criminal procedure announced in *Apprendi*does not apply retroactively on initial collateral review).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                          47,646  
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               170,430
<PP&E>                                         205,588
<DEPRECIATION>                                 158,548
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 217,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          186,068
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   217,470
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               191,258     
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 78,645
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             78,645
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### People of Puerto Rico, Plaintiff and Appellee, *v.*Moisés Carrión, Defendant and Appellant.

Nos. 6680 and 6681.

Argued December 3, 1937.

Decided December 23, 1937.

*Carlos II. Julia*for appellant. *R. A. Gómez, Prosecuting Attorney,*for appellee.

Mr. Justice Wolf

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In these cases there was evidence tending to show that the defendant, Moisés Carrión, met the prosecuting witness, Segundo Vázquez, on a street in the town of Loiza, and after an exchange of words which are unimportant, produced a revolver and fired three shots at Vázquez without injuring-him. "When the police arrived, Carrión had disappeared and it was impossible to locate the alleged weapon. These facts appear from the testimony of Segundo Vázquez. Carrión was convicted of aggravated assault and of carrying a prohibited weapon. On appeal to this court, his sole objection is to the weighing of the evidence by the lower court.

The finding of the trial judge was based practically only on the testimony of the prosecuting witness. Although he was the injured party and his testimony should be carefully analyzed by a trial court, we are not disposed to reverse the decision of that tribunal with regard to his credibility. The evidence is perhaps not as strong as might be imagined, but there is enough in the record to support the judgment of the lower court in both appeals.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Del Toro and Mr. Associate Justice Cordova Dávila took no part in Jhe decision of this case.
#### OSTROWSKI *v.*WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Judgment — Modification— Amendment of Record — Costs.

Upon motion to amend a judgment by adding to it a clause awarding oosts to plaintiff, it was not error to deny the motion when it appeared that the original entry was not entered by fraud, mistake, or neglect of the officers of the court or attorneys, and it was shown that plaintiff’s attorneys prepared and entered the judgment with the assent of defendant’s counsel.

Mandamus by Annie Ostrowski against Joseph W. Donovan, one of the circuit judges for the county of Wayne, to require respondent to vacate an order denying relator’s motion to amend a judgment entry.

Submitted April 16, 1912.

(Calendar No. 24,910.)

Writ denied May 31, 1912.

McHugh, *Gallagher & McGann,*for relator.

Cullen, *Casgrain &*Hanley, for respondent.

Moore, C. J.

This is a proceeding to review the action of the circuit judge in refusing to vacate a judgment. We quote from the brief for relator:

> “Delator brought suit in the Wayne circuit court against the city of Detroit and James Hanley, in an action on the case. She recovered a joint verdict against them in the January, 1911, term of said court, and in April, 1911, term, judgment was entered thereon. The form of the judgment was prepared under the supervision of relator’s attorneys, was approved by the attorneys for the defendant, and did not provide for the recovery of costs. The judgment was paid as entered, and satisfaction thereof was filed. A motion was made in the September, 1911, term of court to amend the judgment by adding a clause allowing costs against defendant city of Detroit, to set aside the satisfaction of judgment, and to credit the amount paid upon the judgment as amended. *564This motion was argued and denied. In addition to the foregoing facts, the respondent returns the opinion that the judgment as entered was not ‘ entered through any mistake, carelessness, or fraud on the part of the clerk of said court, or on the part of the attorneys for plaintiff or defendants.’ Question involved: Has a circuit court power to amend its judgment after the term in which it is entered and after the filing of a satisfaction of judgment ? ”

Counsel then make an elaborate argument to the effect that a circuit court has power to amend its judgments.

We do not think that question is controlling. Conceding it has the power, ought the court to exercise it in this case ? The circuit judge found that there was no mistake, carelessness, or fraud in the entry of the judgment. The judgment was paid. The judge also found the judgment was entered by the clerk just as requested by counsel for both parties.

We think the action of the circuit judge should be affirmed, with costs.

Steere, McAlvay, Brooke, Blair, Stone, and Ostrander, JJ., concurred. Bird, J., did not sit.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 42898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20390]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 21, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice 
President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-1579:
    1. Franklin Resources, Inc., San Mateo, California; to acquire up 
to 7 percent of the voting shares of State Bank and Trust Company, 
Pinehurst, Georgia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 20, 
2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-20390 Filed 8-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
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, 2009, as amended by the Form 10-Q/A 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: November 5, 2009
§ 526.508 Payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States. ( a ) *Professional fees and incurred expenses.* ( 1 ) Receipt of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses for the provision of legal services authorized pursuant to § 526.507(a) to or on behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 526.201, is authorized from funds originating outside the United States, provided that the funds do not originate from: ( i ) A source within the United States;
( ii ) Any source, wherever located, within the possession or control of a U.S. person; or
( iii ) Any individual or entity, other than the person on whose behalf the legal services authorized pursuant to § 526.506(a) are to be provided, whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any part of this chapter or any Executive order or statute.
( 2 ) Nothing in this paragraph (a) authorizes payments for legal services using funds in which any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 526.201, any other part of this chapter, or any Executive order or statute has an interest.
( b ) *Reports.* ( 1 ) U.S. persons who receive payments pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must submit annual reports no later than 30 days following the end of the calendar year during which the payments were received providing information on the funds received. Such reports shall specify: ( i ) The individual or entity from whom the funds originated and the amount of funds received; and
( ii ) If applicable: ( A ) The names of any individuals or entities providing related services to the U.S. person receiving payment in connection with authorized legal services, such as private investigators or expert witnesses;
( B ) A general description of the services provided; and
( C ) The amount of funds paid in connection with such services.
( 2 ) The reports, which must reference this section, are to be submitted to OFAC using one of the following methods: ( i ) Email (preferred method): *OFACReport@treasury.gov ;* or
( ii ) U.S. mail: OFAC Licensing Division, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 306.89 Public officers.

Securities registered in the name of, or assigned to, a public officer designated by title may be assigned by such officer, supported by evidence of incumbency. Assignments for the officer's own apparent individual benefit will not be recognized.
DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.DATE : Apr 30/2012 GMT . Subject to revision, must be checked against online version.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 26, 2019

s1118

Order 

Clerk

November 26, 2019

158931

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 158931

COA: 339802

Wayne CC: 16-008446-FC

LAWRENCE ISSAC McCREE,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

By order of April 2, 2019, the application for leave to appeal the December 13, 

2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

People v Dixon-Bey (Docket No. 156746). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having 

been denied in Dixon-Bey on July 29, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), the application is 

again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question 

presented should be reviewed by this Court.
HomeBiographies...Linda Specht

# 				Linda Specht			

															Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Security Agreements and Foreign Policy Advisors						Bureau of Political-Military Affairs												

				June 27, 2022 -									Present							

Tags

State Department Official

Back to Top