alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.3

OFFICERS CERTIFICATE

I, Karen Montbach, a
Managing Director of Citibank, N.A. (the Company), hereby certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2015 (the Agreement), by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities
Inc., as depositor, Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association, as master servicer and special servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as operating advisor, Citibank, N.A., as certificate administrator (the Certificate
Administrator), and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, the following:

1. A review of the Companys activities as
Certificate Administrator during the reporting period ending December 31, 2016 and its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, as of and for the reporting period ending December 31, 2016, the Company has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

This statement is given by the undersigned
as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the undersigneds individual capacity.



|                        |  |  |  |                |  |                   
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------- |  | ------------------
|Date: February 27, 2017 |  |  |  |                |  |                   
|                        |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | Citibank, N.A.
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | By:            |  | /s/ Karen Montbach
|                        |  |  |  | Name:          |  | Karen Montbach    
|                        |  |  |  | Title:         |  | Managing Director 

CGCMT 2015-GC29
For U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and certain non-citizen U.S. corporations, this document constitutes a Certificate of Registration. For all others, this document represents a recognition of ownership. For all holders, for all operations other than as a model aircraft under sec. 336 of Pub. L. 112-95, additional safety authority from FAA and economic authority from DOT may be required. Safety guidelines for flying your unmanned aircraft: 

# Small UAS Certificate of Registration

CERTIFICATE HOLDER: UAS CERTIFICATE NUMBER: ISSUED: EXPIRES: 

# Federal Aviation Administration

• Fly below 400 feet

• Never fly near other aircraft

• Keep your UAS within visual

line of sight

• Keep away from emergency

responders • Never fly over stadiums, sports events or groups of people

• Never fly under the influence

of drugs or alcohol

• Never fly within 5 miles of an airport

without first contacting air traffic control and airport authorities 

## Andrew Burkert FA3MXLHME4 03/11/2016 03/11/2019
Take notice that a meeting will be held in the above-docketed proceedings on Thursday, February 24, 2000, at 10: a.m., in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. The purpose of the meeting is to clarify and ascertain additional information regarding Questar Line 90 Company's request of November 9, 1999, for an opinion from the General Counsel that certain prospective salvage activities related to Line 90 Company's oil pipeline purchased from ARCO Pipe Line Company are nonjurisdictional and will not require prior certificate authorization. Line 90 Company is also concerned that these activities will not prejudice Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company's pending certificate application in Docket No. CP99-163-000                     *et al.*                     to acquire (from Line 90 Company), convert, and operate the heretofore oil pipeline for the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce.                

Specifically, all of the parties should be prepared for a discussion on the following questions, among others, relating to the requested General Counsel interpretation:

What are the specific activities to be undertaken by Line 90 Company with respect to the oil pipeline and why? Identify specific equipment/facilities.

Would the specific activities, including removal of facilities and equipment, be undertaken regardless of whether the conversion of the oil pipeline to natural gas was planned?

What are the “environmental remediation obligations” of ARCO with respect to the subject pipeline, and what is the reason for and nature of Line 90 Company's involvement in such measures? What is ARCO's schedule for all remaining activities associated with the oil pipeline?

Any party, as defined in 18 CFR 385.214, and any participant, as defined in 18 CFR 385.102(b), in the above-captioned proceedings are invited to participate in the meeting. However, no topics other than those pertaining to the requested General Counsel opinion will be considered. For additional information, please contact Dennis Vasapoli (202) 208-0461 or Robert Christin (202) 208-1022, at the Commission.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-2887  Filed 2-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6206

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TELLY SAVALAS ARMSTRONG,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:02-cr-00158-FDW-1; 3:16-cv00380-FDW)

Submitted: June 18, 2020 Decided: June 23, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Telly Survar Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Telly Savalas Armstrong seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. 

See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Armstrong has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
-90 -88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

 44

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/22

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 22 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■

■

■

■

●

★

●

●

●

★

●

● ●

●
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 4 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 4

   Expressing the sense of the Congress that federally funded school 
            lunches should provide optional meatless meals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Jacobs submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Congress that federally funded school 
            lunches should provide optional meatless meals.

Whereas conscientious objection has long been recognized as a valid reason for 
        exemption from induction into the Armed Forces of the United States;
Whereas an increasing number of school youths are conscientiously committed to 
        compassionate lifestyles which include rejection of meat diets; and
Whereas federally funded school lunch programs seldom provide non-meat meals 
        with due regard for other reliable sources of necessary amino acids: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that federally funded school lunch 
programs should provide nutritious non-meat meals for students who 
conscientiously believe such meals to be best for themselves.

                                 <all>
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department



## 40 **CA 11-01546** PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF KELI-KORAN LUCHEY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS AND CYNTHIA A. BIANCO, IN HER CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS.

HURWITZ & FINE, P.C., BUFFALO (MICHAEL F. PERLEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS.

RICHARD E. CASAGRANDE, LATHAM (ANTHONY J. BROCK OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Appeal and cross appeal from a judgment (denominated decision and order) of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered October 5, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment, among other things, directed respondents to reinstate petitioner to her tenured position.
It is hereby ORDERED that said cross appeal is unanimously dismissed ( see Town of Massena v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp ., 45 NY2d 482, 488; see also CPLR 5511) and the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Entered: February 17, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2890]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 9 a.m., Friday, February 11, 2000.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:  
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: February 3, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-2890 Filed 2-3-00; 4:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
9VAC5-40 Page 23-A of 60

Note: 

Equation in Section 8100 of Chapter 40- Article 54 for calculating the average daily 

nitrogen oxide emissions.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

DERECK MICHAEL MARTZ, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 560 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED. The issues as stated by petitioner are: 

(1) Whether the common law Infancy Defense should no longer be 

recognized as a defense since the adoption of the Juvenile Act of 1976, 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301 et seq., and in light of the expansion of the Statute of 

Limitations for sexual assault crimes against minors, when its continued 

application results in inequitable and disparate treatment of offenders in 

the juvenile justice versus the adult criminal justice system for the same 

offenses, and is prejudicial to victims? 

(2) In the alternative, if the Infancy Defense is deemed a viable common law 

defense, is it an affirmative defense which can only be determined at Trial 

by the fact finder, and cannot be used to exclude evidence or dismiss 

charges prior to Trial.
#### Ex parte McCLAIN.

No. 26238.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George ■ P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

Relator, an inmate of the penitentiary, seeks by writ of habeas corpus his release, alleging a faulty cumulation of the sentences against him.

It is shown that relator is confined by virtue of sentences in twelve cases from the Criminal District Court of Harris County and Criminal District Court No. 2 of said county. Relator plead guilty and was sentenced to two years in each case.

Causes Nos. 55961, 55963, 55965, 55967, 55969, and 55971 were heard by the Criminal District Court of Harris County.

Causes Nos. 55960, 55962, 55964, 55966, 55968, and 55970 were heard by Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris County.

The cumulation was sought to be effected by reference to the number of the cause only.

Where two or more cases are pending before the same court and where the accused is sentenced on the same day, a reference to the other causes by number only is sufficient to cumulate the sentences. Ex parte Snow, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 640, 209 S. W.2d 931.

This is not so where the reference is made to a sentence in another court by number only.

The cumulation herein was effective to authorize relator’s confinement for a term of twelve years.

Relator has served such time and, accordingly, is ordered discharged.
Exhibit 10.10

                                      NOTE

$16,960                                           Date: April 10, 2000


     FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,   Archer  Systems  Limited,   Inc.,  the  undersigned
("Payor"),  hereby  promises  to pay to the  order of  Zamora  Funding,  Inc.  a
Delaware corporation,  ("Holder"),  the principal amount of $16,960.00,  payable
twenty  four (24) months  after the date first set forth  above.  The  principal
amount hereof from time to time  outstanding  shall bear interest at the rate of
six percent (6%) per annum,  payable on the date set forth  above.  All payments
hereunder  shall be in  lawful  money of the  United  States of  America  at the
address of the Holder  hereof or at such  address as shall be  specified  by the
Holder to Archer Systems Limited, Inc.
     If any default shall be made in the payment of interest or principal,  then
the Holder, by written notice to the Payor, may exercise all of its legal rights
to collect  the  balance due unless  within  five (5)  business  days after such
notice the default  shall be cured by Payor.  Such notice  shall be deemed given
three (3) days after having been  deposited in the United  States Mail  properly
addressed  and  sent by  registered  mail to the  particular  addressee,  return
receipt requested.

     Prepayments may be made in this note  voluntarily at any time and from time
to time, without penalty.



                                                 Archer Systems Limited, Inc.


                                                 BY:/s/Richard Margulies
                                                 -----------------------
                                                       Richard Margulies
                                                       President

                                        5
#### Theasia H. Brown, Plaintiff, *v.*Margaret Reed et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

August 21, 1957.

*Samuel J. Silverman*and *Pauli Murray*for Margaret Beed, defendant.

*Irving Wallenstein*for plaintiff.

Charles J. Beckinella, J.

This is a motion made pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, by defendant Margaret Reed, for judgment dismissing the complaint, or in the alternative for an order directing plaintiff to serve an amended complaint, separately stating and numbering each cause of action relied on and making the complaint more definite and certain.

The action is one for defamation and charges defendant Margaret Reed with publishing certain defamatory matter of and concerning the plaintiff. The alleged defamatory matter is purportedly set forth in paragraph *“*Fourth ” of the complaint. That paragraph refers to statements published on March 4, 1957 and April 8, 1957, and also charges defendant Margaret Reed with spreading rumors amongst the various members of the codefendant club “ to the effect that the plaintiff has withheld moneys collected by her for the sale of tickets ”. The specific dates, occasions and exact words of the alleged rumors are not set forth, nor does it appear that the alleged defamatory statements of March 4 and April 8 are set forth in their exact language.

The failure to set forth the actual words constituting the alleged defamatory matter renders the complaint defective. It *9is not sufficient to summarize the language or to state the substance or general effect of the words used. *(Crowell*v. *Schneider,*165 App. Div. 690; *Goldman*v. *Nu-Boro Park Gleaners,*182 Misc. 295.)

As has been indicated, the complaint sets forth two or more separate publications of alleged defamatory statements. "Where separate publications are sued upon they must be separately stated and numbered. Every publication of defamatory words is a new publication and is a distinct cause of action. *(Fisher*v. *New Yorker Staats-Zeitung,*114 App. Div. 824 [2d Dept.].) A further aspect that presents itself in this regard is that it cannot be determined from a reading of the complaint whether all or only some of the separate publications were either oral or in writing; it would be necessary to set forth whether the publications were oral or in writing for it would be improper to unite in one cause of action a cause of action in slander with one in libel. *(Roberts*v. *Pratt,*174 Misc. 585.) The plaintiff is therefore required to separately state and number her several causes of action if she is suing upon several publications, or if she is not, and intends to sue only upon one publication and one defamatory utterance, she must make her complaint more definite and certain. *(Cerro De Pasco Tunnel & Mining Co.*v. *Haggin,*106 App. Div. 401.)

Accordingly, the motion is granted with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within 20 days after service of an order with notice of entry.

Settle order on notice.
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 22323.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 9, 1942.

Alexander Gullett, of Denison, and Hubert Bookout, A. F. Nossaman, and O. H. Woodrow, all of Sherman, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*713DAVIDSON, Judge.

The conviction is for murder. The penalty assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of twenty years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. In the absence of the evidence adduced upon the trial, we are unable to appraise the objections presented to the court’s charge.

The record reflects that the indictment against appellant was returned in the 15th District Court of Grayson County anti that the trial was had in the 59th District Court of said county. It is insisted that there was no transfer of the case to the 59th District Court and that, the rule announced in Koll v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 157 S.W.2d 377, is controlling. Such position is untenable because this record shows that the case was by order, transferred to the 59th District Court. There is nothing to show that such order was invalid as .existed in the Koll case, supra. Moreover, no complaint was made upon the trial of the case relative to the jurisdiction of the 59th District Court to try the same.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
EXHIBIT 33.1





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIAFOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES





Entergy New Orleans, LLC (the “Servicer”), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:





(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), 2(iii) (advances or guarantees), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), (4)(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust for an obligor), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), and (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);





(2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;





(3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2023,  which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and





(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2023, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.











---




Dated: March 22, 2024


Entergy New Orleans, LLC, as servicer


By: /s/ Barrett E. Green





Name:  Barrett E. Green


Title:   Vice President and Treasurer