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



Global Corporate
Trust

190 S. LaSalle
Street, 7th Floor

MK-IL-SL7C

Chicago, IL 60603



usbank.com



Annual Statement of Compliance

GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-GC26



VIA EMAIL



To Addresses on Exhibit A:



| | Re: | GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-GC26, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-GC26 (the “Trust”),
issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2014 (the “Agreement”), by
and among GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, as Depositor, U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator and
Trustee, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners,
LLC, as General Special Servicer, and CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Cypresswood Court Shopping Center Special Servicer
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I, Kimberly O. Jacobs,
a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator, hereby certify that:



(1) A review of the activities
of the Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of the performance
of the Certificate Administrator under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and



(2) To the best of my knowledge,
based on such review, the Certificate Administrator has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such Reporting Period.



Capitalized terms used
but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.



Date: March 1, 2019



U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator





|By: | /s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs | 
|--- | ---------------------- | 
|    | Kimberly O. Jacobs     | 
|    | Senior Vice President  | 













usbank(logo)



Exhibit A



GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II

200 West Street

New York, New York 10282-2198

Attention:GSMS
2014-GC26

leah.nivison@gs.com,



Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

375 Park Avenue, 2nd Floor

J0127-023,

New York, New York 10152

Attention: GSMS 2014-GC26

cts.sec.notifications@wellsfargo.com,



Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

9062 Old Annapolis Road,

Columbia, Maryland 21045

Attention: GSMS 2014-GC26



Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

390 Greenwich Street, 5thFloor,

New York, New York 10013,

Attention: GSMS 2014-GC26

ryan.m.oconnor@citi.com



Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich Street, 14thFloor

New York, New York 10013

Attention: Citibank Agency & Trust - GSMS 2014-GC26

john.hannon@citi.com
# PORTLAND

FRO M FORES TT O FAUCE T Nic k Fish , Commissione r Davi d G . Shaff , Administrato r 112 0 S W 5t h Avenue , Roo m 60 0 Portland , Orego n 97204-192 6 Information : 503-823-740 4 www.portlandoregon.gov/wate r An Eijtial OpportunityEmploye

Decembe r31 , 201 4 Dea rSi ro rMadam : Th e Cit yo f Portland , Oregon , Wate rBurea u appreciate s th e opportunit yt o provid e comment s regardin g distributio n syste m wate rstorag e facilit yinspectio n an d cleaning . Th e Portlan d Wate rBurea u conduct s routin e inspectio n an d cleanin g o f ou rdrinkin g wate r storag e tanks . W e fee l tha t a multi-barrie rapproach , includin g routin e inspectio n an d cleanin g o f storag e facilities , i s necessar yfo roptimizin g distributio n syste m wate rquality . However , w e d o no t believ e tha t a separat e federa l regulatio n i s necessary , no rd o w e believ e that a one size-fits-al l regulator yapproac h t o tan k inspections/cleanin g i s appropriate . State s alread y hav e th e authorit yt o addres s storag e tan k maintenanc e issue s wit h sanitar ysurvey s unde rth e SWTR . Additionally , ther e i s existin g guidanc e fro m AWW Aregardin g bes t practice s fo rstorag e tan k inspection s an d cleanings . Sincerely ,

Chri s J . Wanne r Directo ro f Operation s

Th e Cit yo f Portlan d wil l mak e reasonabl e accommodatio n fo rpeopl e wit h disabilities . Pleas e notif yu s n o late rtha n fiv e (5 ) busines s day s prio r

t o th e even t b yphon e 503-823-7404 , b yth e City' s TTYa t 503-823-6868 , o rb yth e Orego n Rela yServic e a t 1-800-735-2900 .
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 March 3, 2017

a0228

Order 

Clerk

March 3, 2017

155322 & (17)

SHERWOOD VILLAGE ASSOCIATES

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 155322

COA: 335884

Wayne CC: 16-014289-CZ

KEITH ZARZYCKI and LINDA SACKETT,

Defendants,

and

TOS HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.1



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Form 10-Q of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, I, Martin L. Vaughan, III, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(a) such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and



(b) the information contained in such Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Company and its subsidiaries as of and for the periods presented in such Form
10-Q.



|    |  |                                                             |  |  |  |       |  |            
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | -----------
|    |  |                                                             |  | 
|By: |  | /s/    Martin L. Vaughan, III                               |  |  |  | Date: |  | May 5, 2005
|    |  | Martin L. Vaughan, III Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |       |  |
#### William CAMPOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MANTECH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1297

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed February 13, 2018

(D.C. No. l:14-CV-03088-MSK-MEH) (D. Colorado)

William Campos, Pro Se

Stephen E. Baumann, II, Danielle L. Kitson, Adrienne C. Scheffey, Littler Men-delson, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appel-lee

Before MATHESON, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Michael R. Murphy,

Circuit Judge

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

On November 14, 2014, Appellant William Campos filed a complaint in federal district court alleging claims of discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, retaliation under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and retaliation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The district court resolved Appellee’s motion for summary judgment on August 2, 2016, by entering judgment in favor of Appellee on Campos’s federal claims and dismissing his Colorado state claim without prejudice. Between August 11, 2016, and December 12, 2016, Campos filed three motions for reconsideration. Each was denied by the district court.

On July 25, 2017, Campos filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court denied the motion and Campos filed a timely notice of appeal. This court reviews the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion. *Weitz v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc.,*214 F.3d 1175, 1181 (10th Cir. 2000). Having reviewed the entire record, including all the district court’s prior orders in this matter, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Campos’s July 25, 2017, motion. The district court correctly concluded that Campos is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) and there is no error in the court’s statement that “a motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate vehicle to use to present arguments that could have been raised previously and were not, nor is it a substitute for taking an appeal.”

The district court’s order of July 27, 2017, denying Campos’s Rule 60(b) motion, is affirmed.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### CHARGING BISON, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERSTATE BATTERY FRANCHISING & DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-10509

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 12, 2018

Craig Scott Hilliard, Esq., Gene Markin, Stark & Stark, PC, Lawrenceville, NJ, Gregory H. Dimmick, Mullin Law, PC, Richardson, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Stacy R. Obenhaus, Michelle Ku, Calli A. Turner, Gardere Wynne Sewell, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Leonard Hawkes MacPhee, Gardere Wynne Sewell, L.L.P., Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Charging Bison, L.L.C., and Interstate Battery Franchising *&*Development, Incorporated, entered into a franchise agreement under which the former would operate a retail battery store. That agreement, still in effect, includes an arbitration clause but with a carveout for disputes “involving the propriety of any termination.” Charging Bison claimed it was entitled to termination and damages because, among other things, Interstate Battery had procured the agreement by fraud. Interstate responded by demanding arbitration. Charging Bison moved to stay arbitration on the ground that its demand for termination fell within the carveout.

In a careful Memorandum Opinion and Order, the district court denied Charging Bison’s motion to stay arbitration. The court properly noted that “[w]hen addressing questions of arbitrability, whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate a particular dispute, all doubts concerning the scope of the arbitration clause ... should be resolved in favor of arbitration” (citing Supreme Court decisions). The court ruled that “the plain meaning of [the carveout provision] does not cover anticipatory terminations of the franchise agreement.”

We have examined the briefs, the applicable law, and pertinent parts of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. The district court was correct to rule that arbitration must proceed as a matter of law. The order denying a stay of arbitration is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons comprehensively stated by the district court.

*

 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.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1668/2005

of 13 October 2005         

fixing the interest rates to be used for calculating the costs of financing intervention measures comprising buying-in, storage and disposal for the 2006 EAGGF Guarantee Section accounting year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1883/78 of 2 August 1978 laying down general rules for the financing of interventions by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For expenditure incurred during the 2006 EAGGF Guarantee Section accounting year:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 October 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 October 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 216, 5.8.1978, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 695/2005 (OJ L 114, 4.5.2005, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 40, 13.2.1988, p. 25. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 956/2005 (OJ L 164, 24.6.2005, p. 8).

----
#### JoAnne S. WILSON Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-1630

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 18, 2017

Filed: December 21, 2017

JoAnne S. Wilson, Pro Se

Nicholas P. Llewellyn, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, Angela Gail Thornton-Millard, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region VII, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Ap-pellee

Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM.

JoAnne S. Wilson filed a complaint in the district court challenging adverse decisions on her 2006 applications for disability insurance benefits and disabled widow’s benefits. The district court1 reversed and remanded, under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further development of the record, and Wilson appeals. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s resolution of the issues Wilson raised below. See Higgins v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review); see also Forney v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 266, 271, 118 S.Ct. 1984, 141 L.Ed.2d 269 (1998) (where claimant sought a reversal of denial of benefits and district court instead remanded under sentence four for further proceedings, claimant could appeal district court decision insofar as it denied her all relief she sought). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.2

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. We note the record reflects multiple errors on the Social Security Administration’s part in the handling of the applications at issue here, as well as in the handling of Wilson’s prior applications, In light of this, we encourage the Commissioner to take appropriate measures to expedite the proceedings on remand.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Charles Yeach v. Landry's, Inc. Downtown Aquarium

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 01024

- CV

Trial court case number: 2016

- 18324

Trial court: 61st District Court of Harris County

Appellee, Landry’s Inc. Downtown Aquarium, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellee asserts that appellant’s November 12, 2018 notice of appeal was untimely filed 15 days after the October 29, 2018 deadlin e and appellant has not filed a motion to

extend the deadline. Appellee’s motion to dismiss is denied

. In civil case s
, a motion for extension of time is implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by R u le 26.1, but within the fifteen

- day extension period provided by R ule 26.3

. See
Hernandez v. Nat ’ l Restoration Techs., L.L.C ., 211 S.W.3d 309, 310 n.1 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam); Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

Although we deny the motion to dismiss, the Court notes that appellant has failed to file

his brief in this appeal . Unless appellant files his brief within 10 days of this order, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

__

/s/ Gordon Goodman

_______

Acting individually

Date: ___ February 7, 2019

___
EXHIBIT 13.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Melco PBL Entertainment (Macau) Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for
the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Simon Dewhurst, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: March 30, 2007



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Simon Dewhurst     
|Name:  |  | Simon Dewhurst         
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
533 P.2d 675

#### Cecil BROWN and Warenell Brown, husband and wife, Hazel Huckaby and Faye Huckaby, husband and wife, Arthur McCuin and Lorenza McCuin, husband and wife, in their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Melvin Kowal and Eileen B. Kowal, husband and wife, Charles L. Haeussler and Kathleen Haeussler, husband and wife, Richard E. Leggee and Catherine L. Leggee, husband and wife, and Elbert P. Huey and Elaine Huey, husband and wife, in their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. Kenneth KUNES, Maricopa County Assessor, Harold D. Lafferty, Maricopa County Treasurer, Henry Haws, Bob Stark, and B. W. Burns, as members of the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, Henry Haws, Bob Stark, and B. W. Burns, as members of the County Board of Equalization, Maricopa County, Arizona, a body politic, Lowell L. Monsees, Howard L. Relfe, and Charles Moody, as members of the Arizona State Board of Property Tax Appeals, Ernest Garfield, Treasurer of the State of Arizona, Arlo Woolery, Director of Department of Property Valuation, State of Arizona, a body politic, Appellees and Cross-Appellants.

No. 1 CA-CIV 2556.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department B.

April 17, 1975.

Rehearing Denied May.9, 1975.

Review Denied June 17, 1975.

Jerry Levine, Scottsdale, for appellants and cross-appellees, Brown and others.

Harold A. Donegan, Jr., Scottsdale, for appellants and cross-appellees Kowal and others.

Beer, Kalyna & Simon by Olgerd W. Kalyna, and Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by James D. Winter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellees and cross-appellants.

OPINION

HAIRE, Chief Judge,

Division 1.

On this appeal the appellant property owners challenge the trial court’s determination that the Maricopa County cyclical revaluation plan being utilized by the appellee-assessor at the time of the trial court litigation was constitutional. The central questions here involved are governed by our decision in Hillock v. Bade, 22 Ariz.App. 46, 523 P.2d 97 (1974) (review granted August 7, 1974), which concerned the Pima County equivalent of the Maricopa County plan. In accordance with that decision, we hold that the trial court’s decision in. the case *sub judice*must be affirmed.

The appellees have filed a cross-appeal challenging the propriety of the class action status which the trial court allowed. Since we have affirmed the trial court on the merits of the appeal, we will consider the cross-appeal abandoned in accordance with appellees’ wishes as stated at oral argument.

Since we can find no reason to depart from our opinion in Hillock v. Bade, *supra,*the judgment is affirmed.

JACOBSON, P. J., and EUBANK, J., concur.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T OR AL I A MUN OZ - L E C HU GA , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71768 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 451- 412 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y19, 2010 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dW A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. O ra l i a M un oz-L ec hu ga, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng her app ea lfr om an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s r e m o v a l o r d e r . W e h av e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . We g r an tan dr e m an dth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 

# FI LED AU G 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71768 2 B e c au s e th e B I A f

a ile dto a d dr e s s th e in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im r a i s e d byM unoz - L e c hugai n he rm ot i on t o a c c e pthe rl a t e - f i l e d br i e f , w e r e m and f o rth e B I A to c o n s id e rh e rc la im in th e f ir s t in s tan c e . See Si ng h v. G on zales , 416 F . 3d10 06 , 10 15 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.
530 P.2d 904

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. James R. JACKSON, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 467.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Jan. 21, 1975.

*59N. Warner Lee, Former Atty. Gen., Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by Robert S. Golden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

William F. Olson, Bisbee, for appellant.

OPINION

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

Appellant contends that his guilty plea should be set aside because the court failed to inform him that by pleading guilty he waived all non-jurisdictional defects. Appellant gives no authority for this contention and we know of no such requirement. We hold that the trial court need not so inform the defendant.

Appellant also contends that his sentence on forgery of from three to four years in the Arizona State Prison is excessive and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the state and federal constitutions. We do not agree. At the time of the instant offense he was on probation in Cochise County under a nine year suspended sentence. His past bad record includes bad checks, embezzling, defrauding an innkeeper, aggravated battery, burglary and interstate transportation of forged securities.

In order to discourage further appeals on the “non-jurisdictional defects” issue we are deciding this case as an opinion.

Affirmed.

HATHAWAY and KRUCKER, JJ., concur.