alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.8  LOGO ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OF LNR PARTNERS, LLC The undersigned, Job Warshaw,
being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the Special Servicer), as special servicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject to any
limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:  1.
A review of the activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencing on January 1,
2018 and ending on December 31, 2018 (or any other shorter period set forth on Schedule I hereto) (the Reporting Period), and of the Special Servicers performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made
under my supervision; and  2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteria under Item 1122
of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  LNR PARTNERS, LLC, a Florida
limited liability companyBy:

/s/ Job WarshawJob WarshawPresident
 Dated: February 19, 2019   1601 Washington Avenue  Suite 700
 Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164 Telephone: (305) 695-5600  Fax: (305) 695-5601




---

Schedule I GSMS 2014-GC24 GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-GC24 (Stamford Plaza Portfolio- CGCMT 2014-GC25) GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II 200 West Street New York NY 10282 Group GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II 200 West Street New York NY 10282 Joe Osborne GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II 200 West Street New York NY 10282 Leah Nivison Kroll Bond Rating Agency, Inc. 845 Third Avnue, 4th Floor Attention: CMBS Surveillance New York NY 10022 General Contact Moodys Investors Service, Inc. 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street Attn: Commercial Mortgage Surveillance Group New York NY 10007 General Contact Morningstar Credit Ratings, LLC 220 Gibraltar Road, Suite 300 Attn: CMBS Surveillance Horsham PA 19044 General Contact Morningstar Credit Ratings, LLC 1065 Avenue of the Americas,
33rd Floor New York NY 10018 General Contact Situs Holdings, LLC 4665 Southwest Freeway Houston TX 77027 Pete Larsen Situs Holdings, LLC Kilpatrick Townsend 8, Stockton LLP 1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800 Atlanta GA 30309-4528 Rex R. Veal Situs Holdings, LLC 2 Embarcadero, Suite 1300 San Francisco CA 94111 Stacey Ciarlanti Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 1055 10th Ave SE MAC
N9401-011 Minneapolis MN 55414 Anthony (Tony) Capaul Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Wells Fargo Department Custody 1055 10th Ave SE Minneapolis MN 55414 Group General Contact Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 9062 Old Annapolis Road Columbia MD 21045 Group Notices Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc. 388 Greenwich
Street, 11th Floor New York NY 10013
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                       AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Tony Tong, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of PacificNet Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of PacificNet Inc.

         I, Shao Jian Wang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of PacificNet Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2004
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of PacificNet Inc.

By: /s/ Tony Tong
    -------------------------------------
    Tony Tong
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
    (Principal Executive Officer)

By: /s/ Shao Jian Wang
    -------------------------------------
    Shao Jian Wang
    Chief Financial Officer
    (Principal Accounting Officer)


                                       17
Exhibit 32


Section 906 Certification





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





Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Journal Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that:





|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year endedDecember 31, 2014(the “Report”), which this certification accompanies, 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.




/s/ Timothy E. Stautberg





Timothy E. Stautberg


President and Chief Executive Officer


March 31, 2015








/s/ Jason R. Graham





Jason R. Graham


Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


March 31, 2015
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lazaro SAGRERO-URENA, also known as Rafael Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10112 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

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

Lazaro Sagrero-Urena, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit. Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Lazaro Sagrero-Urena has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sagrero-Urena has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal pres*248ents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio GONZALEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50016

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 16, 2018

Benjamin Joseph Katz, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Robert H. Rexrode, III, Attorney, Law Offices of Robert H. Rexrode, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Antonio Gonzalez, Jr., appeals his bench-trial conviction for importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzalez contends that the district court erred in concluding that he failed to prove the elements of a duress defense. We review mixed questions of law and fact de novo. *See United States v. Acosta-Sierra,*690 F,3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir. 2012).

The district court did not err in concluding that Gonzalez had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted under duress. *See United States v. Solorzano-Rivera,*368 F.3d 1073, 1081 (9th Cir. 2004). The court was entitled to question Gonzalez’s credibility. *See United States v. Archdale,*229 F.3d 861, 867 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, the record supports the court’s conclusion that the threat alleged by Gonzalez was insufficient to support his duress defense. *See*9th Cir. Crim. Jury Instr. 6.5 (2010) (to establish duress, defendant must prove that threat was “present, immediate, or impending”); *United States v. Chi Tong Kuok,*671 F.3d 931, 948 (9th Cir. 2012) (a threat is “immediate” only if it is specific; “vague and undetailed threats will not suffice”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 59317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23382]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0058; FRL-9901-19-Region3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule for the Update of the Motor 
Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Lancaster 1997 8-Hour Ozone 
Maintenance Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing the proposed rule proposing approval of 
revisions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Implementation 
Plan (SIP). The revisions consist of an update to the SIP-approved 
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and an updated 
point source inventory for NOX and VOCs for the 1997 8-Hour 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard SIP for Lancaster County. 
In the associated direct final rule published on August 8, 2013, the 
table with the revised MVEBs contained numerical errors. Therefore, EPA 
is withdrawing this proposed rule also published on August 8, 2013. The 
proposed rule is hereby withdrawn in its entirety. EPA will commence a 
separate rulemaking action for this SIP revision.

DATES: The proposed rule published at 78 FR 48373 on August 8, 2013, is 
withdrawn as of September 26, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Asrah Khadr, (215) 814-2071, or by 
email at khadr.asrah@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is withdrawing the proposed rule 
proposing approval of revisions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's 
State Implementation Plan (SIP).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 29, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-23382 Filed 9-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Alberto RIVERA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40286 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jorge Alberto Rivera, Jr., Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Alberto Rivera, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rivera has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 11

                               TALK VISUAL CORPORATION
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE
COMMON STOCK SHARES OUTSTANDING

                                               Total       Three Months     Nine Months
                                               Number           Ended           Ended
                                              Of Shares   Sept. 30, 2002   Sept. 30, 2002
                                            -----------    -------------    -------------

<S>                                         <C>             <C>              <C>
Outstanding shares as of January 1, 2002    136,895,987     136,895,987      136,895,987

Issuance of common shares on 1/03/02         10,000,000      10,000,000        9,926,740

Sale of common shares on 2/20/02              2,320,754       2,320,754        1,895,707

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

Total Weighted Average Shares Outstanding   149,216,741     149,216,741      148,718,434
                                            ===========     ===========      ===========


Net Loss                                                    $  (216,672)     $(1,351,605)
                                                            ============     ============
Net Loss per common share (1)                               $    (0.001)     $    (0.009)
</TABLE>



(1) The effect of common stock  options and  warrants are excluded  from diluted
earnings per share as their inclusion would be anti-dilutive for the three month
and nine month periods ended September 30, 2002.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melissa TREVINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10532 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 16, 2018

*440James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Melissa Trevino, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Melissa Trevino has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Trevino has filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief, relevant portions of the record, and Trevino’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Dynacq International, Inc.:

We consent to the use of our reports incorporated herein by reference.


/s/  KenWood & Associates, P.C.
---------------------------------
KenWood & Associates, P.C.

Houston, Texas
November 2, 2001
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 5.1


                                 October 22, 2001


Dynacq International, Inc.
10304 I-10 East #369
Houston, TX  77029

     Re:  Dynacq International, Inc.; Registration Statement on Form S-8

Gentlemen:

          We have represented Dynacq International, Inc., a Nevada corporation
("Company"), in connection with the preparation of a registration statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form S-8 ("Registration
Statement") in connection with the registration of 2,500,000 shares ("Shares")
of the Company's common stock, par value $.001 per share under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, to be offered pursuant to the Dynacq International,
Inc. Year-2000 Stock Incentive Plan ("Plan").

     In this connection, we have examined originals or copies identified to our
satisfaction of such documents, corporate and other records, certificates, and
other papers as we deemed necessary to examine for purposes of this opinion,
including but not limited to the Plan, the Certificate of Incorporation of the
Company, the Bylaws of the Company, and resolutions of the Board of Directors of
the Company.

     We have examined such records and documents and have made such examination
of laws as we considered necessary to form a basis for the opinion set forth
herein.  In our examination, we have assumed the genuineness of all signatures,
the authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals, and the
conformity with the originals of all documents submitted to us as copies
thereof.

          We are of the opinion that the Shares will be, when issued pursuant to
the Plan, legally issued, fully paid, and nonassessable.

          We hereby consent to the filing of this Opinion as an Exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 BREWER & PRITCHARD, P.C.
#### ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Appellant v. ILLUMINA, INC., Appellee Joseph Matal, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor

2016-2388, 2017-1020

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: December 11, 2017

Thomas Saunders, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Joshua Lloyd Stern, David Langdon Cavanaugh, Joshua Koppel, Heather M. Petruzzi; Robert J. Gunther, Jr., New York, NY.

Edward R. Reines, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by Derek C. Walter.

Benjamin T. Hickman, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Michael Sumner Forman, Thomas W. Krause, Scott Weidenfeller.

Before Moore, Bryson, and Hughes, Circuit Judges;

Moore, Circuit Judge.

Ariosa appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) inter partes review decision holding claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,955,794 were not anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0172946 (“Fan”) because Fan was not prior art. Because the Board did not err in determining that Fan is not prior art and did not abuse its discretion in denying Ariosa’s request for rehearing, we *affirm*the Board’s decision. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the termination of the ex parte reexamination proceedings, we *dismiss*the appeal of the termination of those proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART

Costs

No costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fredrick Lamar SMITH, a/k/a Red Fred, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6976

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 26, 2018

Fredrick Lamar Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jeanne Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fredrick Lamar Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that .reasonable jurists would, find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith 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*