alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31

Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, 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 Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2018-C6 (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.Based on my knowledge and 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 servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements 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:  Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; U.S. Bank National Association; CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC; KeyBank National Association;  LNR Partners, LLC; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC; Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC; and Berkeley Point Capital LLC, dba Newmark Knight Frank.

Date:March 30, 2020

|  | /s/ Richard Simpson ___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

CGCMT 2018-C6 Certifications
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 153

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. PITTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle B of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 (relating to estate, gift, and genera6 tion-skipping taxes) is hereby repealed.

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by sub8 section (a) shall apply to estates of decedents dying, and

9 transfers made, after the date of the enactment of this

10 Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stephen Emanouil 

v. Case No. 07-cv-162-PB

Jennie Barker

A M E N D E D O R D E R

After due consideration of the objections filed, I herewith approve the Reports

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated June 14, 2007 and August

31, 2007.

SO ORDERED.

September 14, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Jackson W. Casey, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00162-PB Document 10 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven J. Roy

v. Civil No. 07-cv-353-PB

William Wrenn,

Commissioner, New Hampshire

Department of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

Defendant is ordered to produce the following witnesses for

the preliminary injunction hearing on April 3, 2008:

1. Lucie Bilodeau;

2. Tony Kingsbury;

3. Becky Harding;

4. Allen Cullen;

5. Philip Horner;

6. Seth Bader; and

7. Charles Stevens.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 13, 2008

cc: Steven J. Roy, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00353-PB Document 30 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 1
ASSIGNMENT
                             OF
                     PURCHASE AGREEMENT

     THIS ASSIGNMENT made and entered into this 27th day  of
April,  1999,  by and between AEI FUND MANAGEMENT,  INC.,  a
Minnesota corporation, ("Assignor") and AEI INCOME &  GROWTH
FUND   XXII   LIMITED   PARTNERSHIP,  a  Minnesota   limited
partnership ("Assignee");

     WITNESSETH, that:

      WHEREAS,  on  the  19th day of April,  1999,  Assignor
entered  into Purchase Agreement ("the Agreement") for  that
certain  property  located  1304  Woodward  Avenue,   Muscle
Shoals,  AL  (the  "Property") NOM Muscle  Shoals  LTD.,  as
Seller; and

      WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign all of its rights,
title  and  interest  in,  to and  under  the  Agreement  to
Assignee as hereinafter provided;

      NOW, THEREFORE, for One Dollar ($1.00) and other  good
and  valuable  consideration, receipt  of  which  is  hereby
acknowledged,  it is hereby agreed between  the  parties  as
follows:

     1.    Assignor  assigns all of its  rights,  title  and
     interest in, to and under the Agreement to Assignee, to
     have  and  to  hold  the same unto  the  Assignee,  its
     successors and assigns;
     
     2.    Assignee  hereby  assumes all  rights,  promises,
     covenants,   conditions  and  obligations   under   the
     Agreement  to be performed by the Assignor  thereunder,
     and  agrees  to be bound for all of the obligations  of
     Assignor under the Agreement.

All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain
unchanged and continue in full force and effect.

AEI FUND MANAGEMENT, INC.
("Assignor")



By: /s/ Robert P Johnson
        Robert P. Johnson, its President


AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXII
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
 ("Assignee")

BY: AEI FUND MANAGEMENT XXI, INC.



By: /s/ Robert P Johnson
        Robert P. Johnson, its President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-25-1998
<CASH>                                       4,080,916
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,832,447
<ALLOWANCES>                                    54,971
<INVENTORY>                                 13,557,369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,740,100
<PP&E>                                       3,368,054
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,321,135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,404,474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,331,686
<BONDS>                                      6,293,009
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,500
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,734,279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,404,474
<SALES>                                      9,782,747
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,782,747
<CGS>                                        6,326,510
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,260,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                135,823
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   135,823
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
* 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 Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 19, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10002

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERINA RENAE BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CR-245-2-P 

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terina Renae Brown (“Brown”), federal inmate #30881-077,

appeals the district court’s denial of her 18 U.S.C. § 3582

motion for a reduction in her sentence. Brown received a

stipulated sentence as permitted by FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(e)(1)(C). 

Because Brown’s sentence was imposed in accordance with

Rule 11(e)(1)(C), 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) does not apply. 

Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
No. 03-10002

-2-

denying Brown’s motion. United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29

(5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
#### Pauline Alesich CARVALLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas L. WHALEY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19318.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 3, 1950.

St. Clair Adams & Son, St. Clair Adams, Jr., New Orleans, attorneys for Defendants-Appellees.

Cahn & Cahn, Claude F. Kammer, New Orleans, attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant.

JANVIER, Judge.

For the reasons given in the matter of Whaley v. Gehbauer, 43 So.2d 545, decided by us this day, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-52-01-PB

Bienvenido Jerez

ORDER

The presentence report and the underlying police reports 

confirm the government’s assertion that the convictions at issue

were separated by an intervening arrest. Therefore, the

defendant is not entitled to the relief he seeks. The motion for

resentencing (Doc. No. 21) is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 3, 2008

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Clyde Garrigan, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00052-PB Document 23 Filed 09/03/08 Page 1 of 1
*Release Date: June 30, 2003*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans
Percent
```

| Quarter | Other operating loans1 | Intermediate non-real-estate loans | Long-term real estate loans |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 7.4     | 7.5                    | 7.0                                |
| 7.2     | 7.2                    | 6.8                                |
| 6.8     | 6.7                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.3                                |
| 6.5     | 6.4                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.3     | 6.2                    | 5.9                                |
| 6.2     | 6.1                    | 5.7                                |
| 6.1     | 6.1                    | 5.7                                |
| 6.3     | 6.3                    | 5.8                                |
||
| 0.0     | 0.0                    | 0.0                                |
| 7.7     | 7.6                    | 7.1                                |
| 7.5     | 7.4                    | 6.9                                |
| 7.2     | 7.0                    | 6.6                                |
| 7.0     | 6.9                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.9     | 6.8                    | 6.3                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.2                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
||
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| n.a.    | n.a.                   | n.a.                               |
| 5.8     | 6.0                    | 6.2                                |
| 5.2     | 5.3                    | 5.2                                |
| 5.1     | 5.3                    | 5.6                                |
| 4.6     | 4.9                    | 5.7                                |
| 5.8     | 6.2                    | 6.3                                |
```
1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses
and the care and feeding of livestock (including poultry). Return to table
   * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.
   n.a. Not available.
   Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at
commercial banks.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
Exhibit 10.9

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO

                                VERSATILITY INC.

                       1996 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

         This First Amendment (the "Amendment") to Versatility Inc. 1996
Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan") is dated and made effective as of May
22, 1997. The Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors of Versatility Inc.
(the "Company") on September 30, 1996, and was approved by the stockholders of
the Company (the "Stockholders") on September 30, 1996.

         Article 15 of the Plan permits the Board of Directors, from time to
time, to adopt certain amendments to the Plan without approval of the
Stockholders. On May 22, 1997, the Board of Directors adopted a resolution to
amend the Plan to decrease the minimum length of employment requirement to be
eligible to participate in the Plan from one year to six months.

         In accordance with the Board of Directors' action, the Plan is hereby
amended as set forth in this Amendment.

         1.  Article 3 is hereby amended by deleting the words "one year" in the
             third line thereof after the word "completed and before the words
             "of employment and substituting the words "six months" therefor.

         2.  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have
             the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.

         3.  Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Plan shall
             continue in full force and effect in accordance with its original
             terms and conditions.

This Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors on May 22, 1997.
216 La. 239

#### PUGH v. PUGH.

No. 39593.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 7, 1949.

Alcide J. Weysham, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

James R. Parkerson, Franklin, for defendant-appellee.

FRUGÉ, Justice.

Defendant, appellee, Wallace J. Pugh, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of plaintiff, appellant, Mrs. Leila May Pugh, on the grounds — {1) That the appeal is frivolous and that (2) the transcript was not timely filed.

This suit was brought by Mrs. Leila May Smith Pugh against her husband, Wallace J. Pugh, for a separation from bed and board. Prior to the trial on the merits plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction restraining defendant from alienating or encumbering certain community property. The plaintiff is .appealing sus-pensively from the judgment of the district court dissolving the injunction and dismissing plaintiff’s suit.

In support of the motion to dismiss, the mover contends that the appellant totally failed to make out -her case in the trial court and cannot possibly hope to obtain a reversal of the judgment of the lower court, and that the appeal is therefore a frivolous appeal. There is no merit to this contention because that is a question to be determined when the case is heard on its merits and will not be considered ón a motion to dismiss the appeal. Bujol v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 207 La. 123, 20 So.2d 608; Succession of Damico, 161 La. 725, 109 So. 402; Succession of Pavelka, 161 La. 728, 109 So. 403 .(where numerous authorities are cited)..

As to the second ground urged for dismissing the appeal we see that the order granting the appeal was signed on June 24, 1949, and the transcript of appeal was filed on August 23, 1949, that is to say within the sixty days prescribed by Article 574.1 of the Code of Practice.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54860-54861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22122]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-61,962C]


Hanesbrands, Inc., Tamaqua Division, Including On-Site Leased 
Workers From Kelly Services and Job Connections, Tamaqua, PA; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on September 13, 2007, applicable to workers of 
Hanesbrands, Inc., Tamaqua Division, Tamaqua, Pennsylvania. The notice 
was published in the Federal Register on September 27, 2007 (72 FR 
54939).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in a variety of support activities related to the firm's production of 
laminated fabric and fabric components.
    New information shows that workers leased from Kelly Services and 
Job Connections were employed on-site at the Tamaqua Division, Tamaqua, 
Pennsylvania location of Henesbrands, Inc.
    The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently 
under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include leased workers from Kelly Services and Job 
Connections working on-site at the Tamaqua Division, Tamaqua, 
Pennsylvania location of the subject firm.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers employed at Hanesbrands, Inc., Tamaqua Division who were 
adversely affected by a shift in production of laminated fabric and 
fabric components to El Salvador, the Dominican Republic and Honduras.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-61,962C is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Hanesbrands, Inc., Tamaqua Division, including 
on-site leased workers from Kelly Services and Job Connections, 
Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, who

[[Page 54861]]

became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
August 7, 2006, through September 13, 2009, are eligible to apply 
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 
1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade 
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of September 2008.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-22122 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
181 La. 1025

#### In re STATE, In Interest of EMBREY. GORGES et ux. v. EMBREY.

No. 32686.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 1935.

'John F. Phillips, of Shreveport, for appellant.

William C. Boone, of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

ODOM, Justice.

In October, 1931, Mrs. Sadie Ponsett Em-brey and her husband, P. W. Embrey, were divorced and Mrs. Embrey was granted the care and custody of the ten year old child, Paul William Embrey, Jr., issue of their marriage. In 1933 Mrs. Embrey was married to Anthony J. Gorges and a short time thereafter the said Gorges filed an application in the juvenile court for the parish of Caddo to adopt his stepson, Paul William Embrey, Jr.; his wife, the mother of the child, joining in the application for the purpose of giving her consent.

The father of the child refused to give his consent to the adoption and was cited by the juvenile court to show cause, if any he had or could, why the stepfather of the child should not be permitted to adopt him. The father appeared by way of answer and set up various reasons why the adoption of the child by the stepfather would be illegal, and among other things pleaded that the juvenile court for the parish of Caddo was without jurisdiction in the premises.

The judge of the juvenile court dismissed the proceedings for want of jurisdiction, and Mr. Gorges, who seeks to adopt the child, appealed.

The juvenile judge properly held that his court was not vested with jurisdiction in cases of this kind. Section 52, art. 7, of the Constitution of 1921, provides that there shall be a juvenile court in every parish of the state, and that:

> “The said courts shall have jurisdiction, except for capital crime and assault with intent to commit rape, of the trial of all children under seventeen years of age who may be charged in said courts as neglected or delinquent children, and of all persons charged with contributing to such neglect or delinquency, or with a violation of any law now in existence or hereafter enacted for the protection of the physical, moral or mental well-being of children, not punishable by death or hard labor, and also in all cases of desertion or non-support of children by either parent.”

The juvenile court for the parish of Caddo •was created by Act No. 30 of 1924, and section 6 of that act, relating to its jurisdiction, is a repetition of that part of section 52, art. 7 of the Constitution, above quoted.

*800It is not alleged that the child here involved is either delinquent or neglected. The neglect or delinquency of the child is not involved, nor are any of the persons connected with the case charged with the violation of any law now in existence for the protection of the physical, moral, or mental well-being of any child. It is therefore perfectly clear that the juvenile court for the parish of Oaddo is not vested with jurisdiction in this case and for that reason the proceeding was properly dismissed.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.