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

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

 

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") datedas of January 1, 2015 by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. as Depositor,Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Register,Authenticating Agent and Custodian and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as TrustAdvisor relating to Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C20,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C20 **(MSBAM 2015-C20)**

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the"Special Servicer")hereincertifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activities and performanceof such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicing activities andperformance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018to December 31, 2018 (the"Reporting Period")in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement hasbeen conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligationsunder the terms of the Pooling andServicing Agreement,in all material respects for the Reporting Periodand if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specificallyidentified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, ManagingDirector 

 

Date: March 1, 2019
#### Reed Anthony Kevin WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rayena SHEPPARD-OSWALD; Brian Oswald; Heather Hubert, in her individual and official capacities; Sergeant Scott Matheny, in his individual and official capacities; Officer M. Smoak, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees, and Greenville County Sheriff's Department; Carolina Children’s House; Anthony Wrifford, in his individual and official capacities; Dickerson Center for Children, now known as Dickerson Children’s Advocacy Center Inc.; Jane Hemphill, in her individual and official capacities; Cayce Public Safety Department; Officer Drew Pinciaro, in his individual and official capacities; Greenville Rape Crisis Center, now known as Julie Valentine Center; Shauna Galloway, a/k/a Shauna Galloway-Williams, in her individual and official capacities; WYFF4 Greenville; Hearst Communications, Inc.; Hearst Properties Inc., Defendants, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor, Respondent.

No. 17-6453

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 16, 2018

*191Donald L. Smith, DONALD SMITH LAW FIRM, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellant. Russell W. Harter, Jr., Carly Davis, CHAPMAN, HARTER & HAR-TER, PA, Greenville, South Carolina; A. Johnston Cox,- Janice Holmes, GALLI-VAN, WHITE *&*BOYD, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reed Anthony Kevin Wright appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants on Wright’s third amended complaint alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and malicious prosecution, in violation of South Carolina law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Wright v. Sheppard-Oswald,*No. 6:14-cv-04646-TMC (D.S.C. Mar. 9 & 10, 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8545 

To provide for the reallocation and auction of the electromagnetic spectrum 

between the frequencies of 3450 megahertz and 3550 megahertz, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 6, 2020 

Mr. WALDEN (for himself, Mr. LATTA, and Mr. GUTHRIE) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for the reallocation and auction of the electromagnetic spectrum between the frequencies of 3450 

megahertz and 3550 megahertz, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Beat China by Har5 nessing Important, National Airwaves for 5G Act of 

6 2020’’ or the ‘‘Beat CHINA for 5G Act of 2020’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8545 IH

1 SEC. 2. REALLOCATION AND AUCTION OF 3450–3550 MHZ 

2 SPECTRUM BAND. 

3 (a) WITHDRAWAL OR MODIFICATION OF FEDERAL

4 GOVERNMENT ASSIGNMENTS.—The President, acting 

5 through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Commu6 nications and Information, shall— 

7 (1) not later than 180 days after the date of 

8 the enactment of this Act, in coordination with rel9 evant Federal users, begin the process (if necessary) 

10 of withdrawing or modifying the assignments to 

11 Federal Government stations of the electromagnetic 

12 spectrum between the frequencies of 3450 megahertz 

13 and 3550 megahertz, inclusive; and 

14 (2) not later than 30 days after completing any 

15 such necessary withdrawal or modification under 

16 paragraph (1), notify the Commission that the with17 drawal or modification is complete. 

18 (b) REALLOCATION AND AUCTION.— 

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall— 

20 (A) revise the non-Federal allocation for 

21 the electromagnetic spectrum between the fre22 quencies of 3450 megahertz and 3550 mega23 hertz, inclusive, to permit flexible-use services; 

24 and 

25 (B) notwithstanding paragraph (15)(A) of 

26 section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8545 IH

1 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)), not later than Decem2 ber 31, 2021, begin a system of competitive 

3 bidding under such section to grant new initial 

4 licenses for the use of such spectrum, subject to 

5 flexible-use service rules. 

6 (2) EXEMPTION FROM NOTIFICATION REQUIRE7 MENT.—The first sentence of section 113(g)(4)(A) 

8 of the National Telecommunications and Informa9 tion Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 

10 923(g)(4)(A)) shall not apply with respect to the 

11 system of competitive bidding required by paragraph 

12 (1)(B). 

13 (3) PROCEEDS TO COVER 110 PERCENT OF FED14 ERAL RELOCATION OR SHARING COSTS.—Nothing in 

15 paragraph (1) shall be construed to relieve the Com16 mission from the requirements of section 

17 309(j)(16)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934 

18 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(16)(B)). 

19 (c) COMMISSION DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

20 ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal Communications Com21 mission. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
DM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0415

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHELSEY L. FLESHER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 60-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including September 14, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 8 2020

07/08/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0415
# C_2021329EN.01003302.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/33

---

Action brought on 21 June 2021 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA)

(Case T-343/21)

(2021/C 329/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aruba SpA (Bibbiena, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ARUBA — European Union trade mark No 14 421 598

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 in Case R 259/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings;

| — | order Aruba S.p.A. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Aruba S.p.A. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article (8)(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to the assessment of the similarities between the conflicting signs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article (8)(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to the assessment of the similarities between the conflicting signs.

---
03/02/201 0 11:3G FAX 2024835142 FAA + DMS 0002/00 3 

,..., .^,4-, v , . jv. rnA o^r £30 r^ao 1-ftft KtU UOUNSL AGLT 12002/003 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OP REARINeS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

KYLE GUTCHES 

FAA DOCKET NO. (not. assigned ) 

(Civi l Penalt y Action) 

DMS NO. (not assigned ) 

FAA CASE NO. 2009-GL-23-0105 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

The Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA), by counsel , hereb y 

withdraws it s Complaint, pursuan t t o a settlemen t agreement between 

t h e parties . 

Respectfull y submitte d thi s 22'^ day of February , 2010. 

• O 

C 3 

MicKael P. McKinley ' ' 

Senior Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

847.294.8109 

FAX: 847.294.7498 
,-** + nM<; 01003/003 

03/02/2010 11:3G FAX 2024935142 FAA L)M6 ^^^..^^ ^ 

V/////<:u,^ . ,,.:. u r/^A y<tf Zd * /4Sy FAA REG COUNSL AGL7 @100d/003 

I hereby certif y tha t the foregoing Withdrawal of Complaint has been 

mailed this date by Facsimile and Regular Mail, to ; 

One Copy; 

One Copy; 

Hearing Docket 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Milber Wright Building, Suit e 2W1000 

eoo Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

?AX: (202) 493-5142 

Kyle Gutches 

5030 SW eS'*" Terrace 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33328 

Dated this 22""^ day of February, 2010. 

Michae Mii^aell F F.. McKinle McKinley y / 

Senior Attorney
Marine Corps Sergeant Major Daniel E. Mangrum Joins DTRA  as the Command Senior Enlisted
 
  By DTRA PA
  Defense Threat Reduction Agency Director Rebecca Hersman announced U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Major Daniel E. Mangrum as the agency’s new Command Senior Enlisted Leader (CSEL) on September 6, 2023. The agency’s new CSEL assumed duties during a Change of Responsibilities ceremony by officially receiving responsibilities from the outgoing CSEL, U.S. Army Command Sergeant Major Brant C. Shyrigh. Shyrigh retired after serving 34 years in uniform.
 
Mangrum served most recently as the Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Director for Manpower Plans and Policy Division at Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters Marine Corps. He has also served as Sergeant Major, 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit; Sergeant Major, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 314; Company First Sergeant, Supply Company, 2d Supply Battalion; Company First Sergeant, Companies C and H&S, 1st Battalion, 2d Marine Regiment.
 
As a career Marine, Mangrum’s long history of operational deployments and exercises includes Foal Eagle ’95, Tafakula ’96, CARAT ’97, Operation Iraqi Freedom ’03, Operation Enduring Freedom ’10, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit ’12, UDP ’14, SPMAGTF-CR-CC 19.1 and WestPac 21.1.
 
“I am thrilled to join the DTRA team and look forward to continuing the Agency's tremendous reputation within the Joint Force, our partners, and allies throughout the world," said Mangrum.
 
Mangrum’s professional military education includes attendance at the resident Corporal’s Course, Sergeant’s Course (Distinguished Graduate), Career Course, Advanced Course (Honor Graduate), Senior Enlisted PME (SMMC Writing Award) and Command and Staff College. He holds an Associate’s Degree in General Studies from Central Texas College, a Bachelor’s Degree in Management Business Information Systems from Ashford University, and a Master’s Degree in Military Studies from Command and Staff College.
 
DTRA is honored to welcome Mangrum to the executive leadership staff and the DTRA family.
# Version

# [Content_Types].xml

# DiagramLayout

# Report/Layout

# Settings

# Metadata

# Connections

# Report/StaticResources/RegisteredResources/Map_Gradation35622865064307363.png

# Report/StaticResources/SharedResources/BaseThemes/CY21SU07.json

# Report/StaticResources/SharedResources/Shapemaps/usa.states.topo.json

# SecurityBindings

# DataModel
No. 11-10055.

#### Kula *v.*West Virginia Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1939

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Gregory Joseph Halter, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 15, 1998

Filed: July 6, 1998

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Joseph Halter entered a plea of guilty to a drug distribution charge, a

money laundering charge and an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearms charge. He now brings

a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, seeking to vacate his sentence on the firearm conviction

in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137

(1995). Because of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bousley v. United States,

118 S. Ct. 1604 (1998), we reverse and remand this matter to the district court for

further consideration.
-2-

A true copy.

 ATTEST:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Jovon DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEELING, Warden; Dr. James Brockington; Syed Raza, Dr., I.C.C.C. Telmed Mitt Clinic; James “Keeling,” Warden; Pamela WoodS, Unit Manager; G. A. Haden, Defendants-Appellees, and Virginia Department of Corrections; Harold Clark, Virginia D.O.C. Director; Lt. Taylor; Officer Powers, Correctional Officer, Defendants.

No. 17-7009

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 28, 2017

Jovon Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Maughan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jovon Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), *779the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R, 34(b). Because Davis’ informal brief does not sufficiently challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, Davis has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.* 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,

*AFFIRMED*

*

 We have considered and reject Davis’ contention that the district court abused its discretion in denying the appointment of counsel. *See Miller v. Simmons,*814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (stating standard of review).
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 230 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 230

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 25, 1998

      Received and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
                      Honoring the Berlin Airlift.

Whereas the Allied effort to supply the people of Berlin, Germany, with food, 
        fuel, and supplies in the face of the illegal Soviet blockade that 
        divided the city was one of the greatest military and humanitarian 
        efforts in the history of the world;
Whereas this 15 month Allied effort became known throughout the free world as 
        the ``Berlin Airlift'' and ultimately cost the lives of 78 Allied 
        airmen, of whom 31 were United States fliers;
Whereas this heroic humanitarian undertaking was universally regarded as an 
        unambiguous statement of Western resolve to thwart further Soviet 
        expansion;
Whereas the Berlin Airlift was an unqualified success, both as an instrument of 
        diplomacy and as a life saving rescue of the 2,000,000 inhabitants of 
        West Berlin, with 2,326,205 tons of supplies delivered by 277,728 
        flights over a 462-day period;
Whereas historians and citizens the world over view the success of this 
        courageous action as pivotal to the ultimate defeat of international 
        tyranny, symbolized today by the fall of the Berlin Wall; and
Whereas this inspiring act of resolve must be preserved in the memory of future 
        generations in a positive and dramatic manner: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the celebration of the Berlin 
Airlift should include the presentation of a suitable gift of 
representational art from the citizens of the United States of America 
to the citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany, commemorating the 
fall of the ``Berlin Wall'' and the reunification of this great city 
and, to this end, civic and corporate leaders across the Nation are 
entrusted to fulfill this intent using private subscription and 
volunteer effort with the encouragement and support of the United 
States Congress.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.

                              By Julie Perrier,

                                                Assistant to the Clerk.
```
#### Frank D. Priory v. S. Anderson, *et al.*

156 So. 22.

Appeal Dismissed November 9, 1933.

Opinion Filed June 25, 1934.

*Ella Jo Stollberg,*for Appellant;

*Baxter & Walton, T. S. Ellis, Jr.,*and *John W. Whelan,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

— This cause coming on to be heard upon the motion of appellant, Frank D. Priory, to reinstate the above entitled cause which has heretofore been dismissed by this Court on motion of appellees and the Court having fully considered all of the causes and things presented as grounds or causes for reinstatement, is of the opinion that the motion to reinstate should not be granted for the reason that a- cursory inspection of the transcript of the record has revealed that no reversible error was committed with *779respect to the' order of March 4, 1933, which is the sole order appealed from, therefore the motion to reinstate is denied.

Motion to reinstate dismissed cause denied.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
#### Vasilis Fotiou SAKELLARIDIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. CABRERA, Correctional Officer at CSP-Corcoran, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-16009

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Vasilis Fotiou Sakellaridis, Pro Se

Erick J. Rhoan, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Vasilis Fotiou Sakellaridis appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *An*
      *937
      *dres v. Marshall,*867 F.3d 1076, 1077 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sakellaridis did not exhaust his administrative remedies, and he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. *See Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth the burden-shifting framework for exhaustion); *see also Ross v. Blake,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-60, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative remedies are unavailable).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 11-10341.

#### Nevarez Ibarra *v.*Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2

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

     I, Brian Alleman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Simtek Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2007 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 Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Simtek Corporation.



/s/Brian Alleman
-------------------------------------
Brian Alleman
Chief Financial Officer

August 2, 2007
United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

January 30, 2013

ERRATA

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2011-1355, -1356, -1357, -1358, -1359 

RAYLON, LLC,

v.

COMPLUS DATA INNOVATIONS, INC.,

Decided: December 7, 2012

Precedential Opinion

______________________ 

Please make the following changes: 

Page 16, lines 33-34, change “the court must impose” to 

--the court may impose--. 

Page 17, line 5, change “what sanctions to impose”

to --what sanctions, if any, to impose--