alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.7



|     |  |                                                                                                                        
|---- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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 Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass- Through Certificates, Series 2016-GC36
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 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
August 26, 1971

No. 71-33

#### Gerald R. Darland, SSGT, U. S. Air Force v United States.

On consideration of the “Petition for Relief under the All Writs Act, 28 USC 1651,” filed in the above-entitled action, it appearing that petitioner seeks to challenge the admissibility of certain evidence submitted to the Investigating Officer, appointed pursuant to Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 832, and its consequent effect upon the impartiality of the Investigating Officer and upon the Convening Authority’s qualifications ultimately to review the record of petitioner’s pending trial by general court-martial, each of which matters are more properly to be presented to the military judge at the time of trial, and in no way affect the jurisdiction of this Court ultimately to review the case, it is, by the court, this 26th day of August 1971,

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. Article 51(b), Uniform Code, supra, 10 USC *665§ 851(b); McDonald v Hodson, 19 USCMA 582, 42 CMR 184 (1970); United States v McCormick, 3 USCMA 361, 12 CMR 117 (1953); United States v Lassiter, 11 USCMA 89, 28 CMR 313 (1959).
```

[House Prints, 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             [COMMITTEE PRINT]

====================================================================

 
          CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT: A "HOW-TO" SERIES OF WORKSHOPS

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

                                Sponsored By The

             THE SPEAKER AND THE CHAIRMAN, HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE

                         Organized and Conducted By The

                         CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

                    Proceedings of the Three-Day Workshop On

            Congressional Oversight: A "How-To" Series of Workshops

                         June 28, July 12 and 26, 1999

                                     

                  Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules

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

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63-104                           WASHINGTON : 2000

=====================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


```
# C_2016048EN.01005102.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/51

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 December 2015 — E-Control v ACER

(Case T-671/15 R)

((Application for interim measures - Opinion on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of cross-border electricity transmission capacity - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Infringement of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 048/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schuhmacher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Opinion of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators No 09/2015 of 23 September 2015 on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity in the Central-East Europe region with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 15), and the guidelines on the management and allocation of available transfer capacity of interconnections between national systems contained in Annex I thereto.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
August 21, 1997


In Reply
Refer to: ORC-158

John C. Lawrence
for United States Antimony Corp.
1250 Prospect Creek Road
Thompson Falls, Montana 59873

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sent you a 
request for information pursuant to its authority under Section 104(e) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 
1980,42 U.S.C.  9604(e). EPA sent similar requests to a number of companies 
associated with mining activities in the Coeur d'Alene River Basin.  We needed 
this information in order to identify parties who contributed substantially to 
environmental contamination in the Coeur d'Alene River Basin.  Parties who 
have contributed substantially to this contamination may be added to 
litigation originally filed on March 22, 1996, U.S. v. ASARCO, et al., No. 
96-0122-N-EJL.


     After reviewing the information contained in your response and provided 
by other sources, EPA has determined that it will not recommend adding United 
States Antimony Corp. to this litigation. In providing this notice, EPA 
reserves its right to take separate actions if such action is later 
warranted.  For now, however, we wanted to advise you of our determination 
based on available information.


     Your efforts, and those of the others responding to the information 
requests, have helped the EPA make fair decisions in this massive undertaking 
to ensure the future protection of human health and the environment in the 
Coeur d'Alene River Basin.

     If you have any questions concerning this letter or related issues, 
please call Tom Swegle of the Department of Justice at (202) 514-3143.

                                   Sincerely,

                                   By:/s/Charles E. Findley 
                                   Date:August 21, 1997
                                   Charles E. Findley 
                                   Deputy Regional Administrator
No. 48084.

#### Protests 93677-K, etc., of American Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

*415Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 43372 the protests were sustained as to this claim.
No. 56660.

protest 179366-K (New York).

#### Tice & Lynch, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

An examination of the official papers revealed that the protest was filed 63 days after liquidation. In view of the provisions of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the protest was dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David GONZALEZ-TADEO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-30310.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Michelle R. Mallard, United States Attorney, Pocatello, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Steven V. Riehert, Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington and Idaho, Pocatello, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*57MEMORANDUM **

David Gonzalez-Tadeo appeals his 37-month sentence imposed after pleading guilty to unlawful re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742.

Gonzalez-Tadeo contends that his prior conviction under Idaho’s statute for battery with intent to commit a serious felony is not a categorical crime of violence, and the enhancement violated *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We reject this contention. *See United States v. Smith,*390 F.3d 661, 666-67 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that a modified categorical approach does not permit inquiry into the underlying facts of conviction and that *Apprendi*is not violated in such prior conviction determinations); *see also United States v. Quintana-Quintana,*383 F.3d 1052, 1053 (9th Cir.2004) (order).

Because appellant was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, we remand the sentence for further proceedings consistent with *Ameline,*409 F.3d at 1084-85. *See United States v. Hermosa-Garcia,*413 F.3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir.2005).1

SENTENCE REMANDED.

**

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

1

. Appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.
# C_2016038EN.01005801.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/58

---

Order of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Novartis v OHIM– Mabxience (HERTIXAN)

(Case T-41/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of application for registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 038/77)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mabxience SA (Montevideo, Uruguay)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2014 (Case R 2550/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Mabxience SA.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Novartis AG is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Novartis AG is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

1

---
# C_2017014EN.01003401.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/34

---

Order of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Jenkinson v Council and Others

(Case T-602/15) (1)

((Arbitration clause - EU international mission personnel - Consecutive fixed-term employment contracts - Claim for compensation - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2017/C 014/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Liam Jenkinson (Killarney, Ireland) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents), European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt, E. Chaboureau and G. Pasqualetti, acting as Agents), Eulex Kosovo (represented by: D. Fouquet and E. Raoult, lawyers)

Subject matter of the proceedings

Principally, an application pursuant to Article 272 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, to have the applicant’s contractual relationship reclassified as an employment contract of indeterminate duration and to obtain compensation for the loss that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the abusive use of consecutive fixed-term contracts and an unfair dismissal, and, on the other hand, a declaration that the Council, the Commission and EEAS discriminated against the applicant and an order requiring them to pay compensation to the applicant, and, in the alternative, a claim based on the non-contractual liability of the European institutions.

Operative part of the order

| 1) | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The action is dismissed.

| 2) | Liam Jenkinson is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Liam Jenkinson is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

In re Guardianship of Virginia Ganter,

an incapacitated person.

JONATHAN GANTER,

Appellant,

v.

ERIC GANTER and JACK GANTER, as co-guardians

of Virginia Ganter, an incapacitated person,

Appellees.

No. 2D2023-0447

May 1, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Vivian T. Corvo, 

Judge.

Janelle A. Weber of Manta Law, Tampa, for Appellant.

Pedro W. Rodriguez of Pedro W. Rodriguez, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

VOLVO PENTA OF THE AMERICAS, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2023-1297

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:22-cv-00108-TSE-IDD,

Judge T. S. Ellis, III.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

June 29, 2023

Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow 

Acting Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 29, 2023

Case: 23-1297 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 06/29/2023
# C_2016098EN.01004302.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/43

---

Order of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Proforec v Commission

(Case T-120/15) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Registration of a protected geographical indication - Focaccia di Recco col formaggio - Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 098/57)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Proforec Srl (Recco, Italy) (represented by: G. Durazzo, M. Mencoboni and G. Pescatore, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/39 of 13 January 2015 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Focaccia di Recco col formaggio (PGI)) (OJ 2015 L 8, p. 7).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Italian Republic and the Consorzio della Focaccia di Recco col formaggio. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Italian Republic and the Consorzio della Focaccia di Recco col formaggio.

| 3. | Proforec Srl shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission other than those relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Proforec Srl shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission other than those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

| 4. | Proforec, the Commission, the Italian Republic and the Consorzio della Focaccia di Recco col formaggio shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Proforec, the Commission, the Italian Republic and the Consorzio della Focaccia di Recco col formaggio shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 8974)

Entry No. 7610, etc.

#### James Loudon & Co. for Mitchell Leisen et al. *v.*United States

(Decided August 29, 1957)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate to various classes of merchandise exported from France and entered at the port of Los Angeles, Calif.

The cases have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation wherein the parties agree that the issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those which were the subject of the decision in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*36 Cust. Ct. 596, Reap. Dec. 8590, the record in which was incorporated herein by consent. In that case, the court held foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for ap-praisement of the merchandise there under consideration, and that such statutory value did not include the so-called “French sole or unique tax.”

• An agreed set of facts, included in the stipulation of submission, establishes that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise involved herein is statutory foreign value, and that such value for each of the items in question is the appraised value “less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases,” and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

March 11, 1943

No. 48088.

#### Petition 6272-R of Maurice Levy (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

From the testimony of the witness in this case (the petitioner) it was found that the invoice price had been paid for the goods and that rather than make amended entry to cover additions he decided to make a test case, and that he did not withhold any information from the Government officials, and did not intend to defraud the Government. On the record presented the petition was granted. *United States*v. *Guerlain, Inc.*(28 C. C. P. A. 200, C. A. D. 146), and *Mrs. G. P. Snow*v. *United States*(1 Cust. Ct. 46, C. D. 13) cited.
# C_2016326EN.01000701.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/7

---

Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2015 in Case T-364/13: Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v EUIPO

(Case C-619/15 P)

(2016/C 326/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta, KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna (represented by: B. Szczepaniak, radca prawny)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 21 June 2016 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
# Fou rth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

March 27, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00918

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.O.M. AND K.R.M., CHILDREN,

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CI09446 Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr. , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A ppellants ’ brief was originally due to be filed on March 1, 2019

. This court granted appellants ’ first motion for extension of time, extending the deadline for filing the brief to April 1, 2019. On March 22, 2019 , appellant s filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time
to file the brief until May 1, 2019 , for a total extension of sixty

- one days. The motion is
GRANTED , however, this is the final extension of time appellants will be granted. Appellants ’ brief must be filed by May 1, 2019

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 27th day of March, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
No. 53771.

protest 61023-K (New York).

#### Clarence I. Penn *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *The Otto Gerdau Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 24, C. D. 1120) and *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(id. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.