alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.11



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

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

390 Greenwich Street, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10013

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator for the Stamford Plaza Portfolio Loan Combination (in
such capacities, Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the reporting period):



| | (a) | A review of Wells Fargos activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the Servicing Agreement(s)) has been made
under my supervision; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule
B.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 26, 2015

\s\ Brian Smith

Brian Smith

Vice President



---

To: Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

Schedule A

List of
Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2014, by and among GS MORTGAGE
SECURITIES CORPORATION II, Depositor, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, Special Servicer, SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC, Operating Advisor WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Certificate Administrator and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Trustee relating to the Series GSMS 2014- GC24 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates relating to the Stamford Plaza Portfolio Loan Combination, a Pari passu portion of
which is included in the Series CGCMT 2014-GC25 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.



---

To: Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

Schedule B

Material
Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

Not Applicable
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Themba Bernard SANGANZA, a/k/a Bernard Themba Sanganza, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7011

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: January 16, 2018

Themba Bernard Sanganza, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Patrick Hudson, Brian James Samuels, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Themba Bernard Sanganza seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the charges against him due to the Government’s alleged violation of the plea agreement. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Sanganza seeks to appeal was entered prior to the imposition of his sentence, and as such, it is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.* Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be*182fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 Sanganza may raise this claim in his appeal from final judgment, No. 17-4601 (filed Sept. 21,2017).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial  information  extracted from the balance
sheet and  statement of operations of the company as of and for six months ended
June 30, 1997,  and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                          0001006030
<NAME>                         APPLIED GRAPHICS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                         2,039
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  35,350
<ALLOWANCES>                                   526
<INVENTORY>                                    6,194
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               51,782
<PP&E>                                         44,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                 24,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 86,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          23,797
<BONDS>                                        17,403
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       144
<OTHER-SE>                                     42,214
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   86,155
<SALES>                                        81,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               81,072
<CGS>                                          52,871
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  52,871
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9,641
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,760
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5,881
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,881
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.38
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q
FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,472
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,900)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   304
<PP&E>                                           5,121
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2,568)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,403
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,835
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,252
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,287
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,401
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (81)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,108)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,108)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION, Appellant v. STEADYMED LTD., Appellee

2017-2121

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

November 14, 2017

Stephen Maebius, Foley *&*Lardner LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Geokge Ells-worth Quillin; Douglas H. Carsten, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, San Diego, CA; Robert Dblafield, Austin, TX; Shaun R. Snader, United Therapeutics Corporation, Washington, DC.

Stuart Eric Pollack, DLA Piper US LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellee. Also represented by Lisa Anne Haile, Stanley Joseph Panikowski, III, San Diego, CA.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Wallach and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------


<PAGE>

                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


     1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
          required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
          on Form 10-K of CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-22 (the
          "Exchange Act periodic reports");

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
          whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
          to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
          light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
          misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
          information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
          covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
          reports;

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
          conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required
          in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
          disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have
          fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all
          material respects; and

     5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
          for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
          assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
          securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
          Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
          have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
          disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
          described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
          10-K.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
     provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York,
     as Trustee.

Date: March 26, 2007


     /s/ Steve Bailey
     ----------------------------
     Steve Bailey
     Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000937

10-APR-2019

09:43 AM
#### Derrell JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.T. WOODY, Jr., Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-7128

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 26, 2018

Decided: January 31, 2018

Derrell Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Derrell Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing, without prejudice, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint for failure to immediately notify the court of a change in his address. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). *See Ballard v. Carlson,*882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989). Our review of the record reveals that, although the district court’s June 30, 2017, order was returned without delivery to Johnson, Johnson had provided the court with his correct, current address, which did not change.* Because the record does not support the district court’s rationale for dismissal, we conclude that the dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion. *See Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.,*733 F.3d 105, 112 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that “district court abuses its discretion by resting its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of a material fact” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal order and remand the case to the district court to allow Johnson another opportunity to comply with the June 30, 2017, order. 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.

*VACATED AND REMANDED*

*

 The record does not reveal why the order was returned as undeliverable, We note that the district court had no reason to suspect that the failed delivery was based on the fortuity of the mail rather than a change of Johnson’s address.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Compass Acquisition Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



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





Date:  February 15, 2010

/s/    Joseph R. Rozelle



JOSEPH R. ROZELLE

Principal Executive Officer

and Principal Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Order entered March 25, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01637-CV

DR. RICHARD MALOUF AND LEANNE MALOUF, Appellant

V.

GRAHAM WOOD AND AOL, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-06268-C

ORDER

The Court has before it the joint motion to set briefing schedule filed by Appellant, Dr. 

Richard Malouf, and Appellees, Graham Wood and AOL, Inc., in which the parties request the 

Court to establish a combined briefing schedule for the appeal and cross-appeal. The Court 

GRANTS the motion. The briefing deadlines and word limits are as follows:

Brief Deadline Word Limit 

Malouf's appellant's brief May 9, 2014 15,000 words 

Combined appellee's brief for 

Wood and appellant's brief for 

AOL 

June 13, 2014 19,500 words 

Malouf's combined appellee's 

brief and appellant's reply 

brief 

July 18, 2014 12,000 words 

AOL's appellant's reply brief August 8, 2014 7,500 words 
Having reviewed the clerk’s record, the Court has a question concerning its jurisdiction 

over the portion of the appeal filed by Dr. Richard Malouf concerning the trial court’s order, 

signed November 5, 2013, in which the trial court dismissed Malouf’s claims against defendant 

Graham Wood. The various orders included in the record before the Court do not appear to 

dispose of all the claims and parties remaining in the case. Generally, this Court has jurisdiction 

only over appeals from final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 

(Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute. Jack B. Anglin 

Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992). Although the trial court has included 

language in its order of dismissal stating that the order dismissing the claims against Wood is a 

final, appealable order, the record before the Court does not include an order severing Malouf’s 

claims against Wood from the claims, issues and parties remaining in the case. 

Accordingly, Malouf is requested to file, within 10 days of the date of this order, a 

jurisdictional letter brief of no more than 5 pages explaining how this Court has jurisdiction over 

the portion of the appeal concerning the dismissal of Malouf’s claims against Wood. Wood may 

file a responsive letter brief of no more than 5 pages within 10 days of Malouf’s letter brief. If 

either party will be relying on information not in the record before this Court that party must 

obtain a supplemental clerk’s record from the trial court containing that information.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   By:
    
    /s/ Amir Bassan-EskenaziName:
    
    Amir Bassan-EskenaziTitle:
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
   By:
    
    /s/ RAVI NARULAName:
    
    Ravi NarulaTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000478

08-JUN-2020

08:07 AM
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the inclusion of our IndependentAuditors’ Report dated March 7, 2007 regarding the statements of financialcondition of 1st Pacific Bank of California as of December 31,2006 and 2005, and the related statements of operations, changes inshareholders’ equity, and cash flows for the three years ended December 31,2006 in the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.

**/s/ VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & CO., LLP**

Laguna Hills, CaliforniaMarch 23, 2007

----
Minor Technical Correction to USDA Feed Cost Data

After finalization of the waiver decision, USDA found a slight error in their feed cost data. The 2012/13 

projected production of chickens (live weight slaughter basis) for Arkansas was miscalculated resulting in 

an underestimate of production by a factor of 4. The underestimate in chicken production, in turn, results 

in the understating of Arkansas feed costs both with and without the mandate for chickens, total poultry, 

and total feed costs, compared to the estimates submitted to the docket for the 2012 RFS waiver 

decision. The national-level estimates were not affected (they were calculated separately), nor were the 

estimates for any other state. 

As noted, a higher production of chicken raises the estimated feed costs in an absolute sense; however, 

comparing the with and without mandate chicken feed costs, in a relative sense, remains the same

because the methodology is increasing the with and without mandates across all scenarios by the same 

factor. As a consequence, the percentage impact of a waiver on Arkansas chicken feed costs remains the 

same. 

For the scenarios evaluated, the revision made for Arkansas chickens, raises Arkansas’ total poultry feed 

costs (chickens, turkeys, and eggs) and total feed costs (sum of poultry, cattle, hogs, and dairy feed 

costs), but does not materially alter the percentage impact of a waiver on Arkansas feed costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul RANGEL, also known as J. R., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11686 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 30, 2017

Shawn Lee Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Andrew Ottaway, Ottaway Law Office, Granbury, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Raul Rangel appeals the 365-month sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He argues that the district court erred in attributing five kilograms of methamphetamine to him for sentencing purposes.

*278The PSR initially attributed a much larger quantity of methamphetamine to Rangel, but, at sentencing, the district court sustained his objection in part and attributed only five kilograms of methamphetamine to him. Rangel’s failure to object to this lesser drug quantity or the resulting sentence results in plain error review. *See United States v. Fierro,*38 F.3d 761, 773 n.4 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s determination of drug quantity is a factual question. *United States v. Betancourt,*422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court did not err in relying on the PSR, which was based on investigative reports and interviews of Rangel’s co-defendants, or speculate as to the amount of methamphetamine attributable to Rangel. Therefore, the district court’s finding of the applicable drug quantity in this case was not plain error.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,