alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.8**

 

 

 

Consent of Independent Auditors

 

We hereby consent to the incorporationby reference in Form 40-F of Acreage Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2018 of our report dated April 29, 2019 relatingto the consolidated financial statements of Acreage Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2018 listed in the accompanyingindex.

 

We also consent to the incorporation byreference of such report into Registration Statement No. 333-229984 on Form S-8 of the Company.

 

 

/s/ MNP LLP

  

 

Toronto, Canada

April 29, 2019
Exhibit 35.17

 

 

225 Franklin Street 18th Floor

Boston, MA 02110

T 877.526.3562

ngkf.com

Officer’s Certificate

Pursuant to the requirements of the applicable Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, for which Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, and Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank, as Primary Servicer, the undersigned, Ronald Steffenino, a Senior Managing Director of Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank, hereby certifies subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, solely in his capacity as an officer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

|   | 1. | A review of the activities of the Primary Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and |   |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|   | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Primary Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. |   |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 31st day of January, 2020.

Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank

  /s/ Ronald Steffenino

Ronald Steffenino

Senior Managing Director,

Servicing and Asset Management

 

 

BPC d/b/a NKF Primary Servicer for Midland

 

----

 

 

Schedule I

Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates; Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank as Primary Servicer:

COMM 2014-CCRE 17COMM 2014-CCRE19

GSMS 2014-GC24COMM 2014-UBS4

COMM 2015-CCRE23COMM 2015 CCRE27

GSMS 2015-GC30COMM 2015-LC19

COMM 2015-LC21CFCMT 2016-C3

CGCMT 2016-C3CFCRE 2016-C7

CCRESG 2016 HEATCCUBS 2017-C1

CGCMT 2017-C4UBS 2017-C5

BMARK 2018 B3MSCI 2018 L1

UBS 2018 C12UBS 2018 C14

UBS 2018 C8UBS 2018 C9

MSCI 2018 H4MSCI 2019 L2

 

 

----

 

BPC d/b/a NKF Primary Servicer for Midland
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Walter Norton

v. Civil No. 06-cv-490-PB

Cross Border Initiative, et al.

ORDER ON SERVICE

By order dated October 17, 2007, this court directed the

United States Marshal for the District of New Hampshire to make

service on, inter alia, Mark Rivet. From a review of the record,

it appears that the New Hampshire Marshals Service sent the

summons for Rivet to the Massachusetts Marshals Service and

requested they effectuate service. From the return of service,

it appears that the Massachusetts Marshals Service delivered the

summons to Detective Sergeant William Canty of the Massachusetts

State Police. This method of service clearly is neither

authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 nor by the New

Hampshire or Massachusetts service statutes. As a result, the

Defendant Rivet has not yet been properly served in this matter.

It has also come to the court’s attention that Defendant

Mark Blanchard, who appears from the Complaint to be an

Case 1:06-cv-00490-PB Document 46 Filed 05/29/08 Page 1 of 2
2

individual Massachusetts State Police Defendant, was

inadvertently omitted from the order directing service and has

not yet been served. 

For the foregoing reasons, the United States Marshal for the

District of New Hampshire is directed to make in hand or abode

service on Mark Rivet and Mark Blanchard as authorized by Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2) or to effectuate service in some

other manner authorized under New Hampshire or Massachusetts

state law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). 

SO ORDERED.

/s/ James R. Muirhead

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 29, 2008

cc: U.S. Marshal - New Hampshire 

Walter Norton, pro se

T. David Plourde, AUSA

Seth R. Aframe, AUSA

Edmund J. Waters, Jr., Esq.

Joseph P. Kittredge, Esq.

William P. Breen, Esq.

Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00490-PB Document 46 Filed 05/29/08 Page 2 of 2
#### In re ADOPTION of Brenda Joyce WILKINS (Annette DeSantis) by Robert Charles Wilkins and Joyce Cooper Wilkins, his Wife.

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B.

Sept. 12, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1956.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TRAVIS SHAW, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee. §

§ § No. 417, 2022 § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 2103001697 (N) § § Submitted: May 4, 2023 Decided: May 25, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR , Justices.

ORDER After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: (1) On October 31, 2022, the appellant, Travis Shaw, pleaded guilty to resisting arrest. In exchange for the guilty plea, the State dismissed a charge of possession of ammunition by a person prohibited and other charges. The State also agreed to recommend a sentence of one year of imprisonment, suspended for Level III probation. At sentencing, Shaw’s counsel requested a lower level of probation; the Superior Court imposed the recommended sentence, with credit for ten days previously served. This is Shaw’s direct appeal.2

(2) On appeal, Shaw’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Shaw’s counsel asserts that, based upon a conscientious review of the record and the law, the appeal is wholly without merit. In his statement filed under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that he informed Shaw of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Shaw of his right to submit points he wanted this Court to consider on appeal. Shaw has not submitted any points for the Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and argues that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed. (3) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims. 1 This

Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation.” 2 (4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that the appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We

also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and

1 Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin , 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 2 Penson , 488 U.S. at 82.3 the law and properly determined that Shaw could not raise a meritorious claim on appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

James Johnson

Criminal No. 06-cr-132-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no. 12) filed by defendant is

granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10 days. The court finds that the

ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

December 8, 2006

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Debra Walsh, Esq.

U. S. Probation

U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00132-JD Document 13 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Daryl SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND STATE POLICE; David B. Mitchell, Secretary of the Department of State Police; E.J. Krickler; Hector Vento, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-2397.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

Daryl Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Scott Curtis, Assistant Attorney General, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Daryl Smith appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons state by the district court. *See Smith v. Maryland State Police,*No. CA-02-1716-WMN (D.Md. Oct. 8 and Dec. 10, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

USA

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-69-01-SM

Ryan Cheney

ORDER

Re: Document No. 18, (construed as) Motion for Transcript at

Government Expense

Ruling: 

 

 Denied. Defendant seeks a copy of the "record of

proceedings" in his criminal case, in anticipation of filing a

motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. ss 2255. The clerk shall

provide defendant with a copy of the docket sheet pertaining to

defendant's case. To the extent defendant actually seeks a free

transcript of his guilty plea hearing and sentencing hearing,

that motion is denied. The motion does not articulate any

specific need for a transcript, but merely suggests that

defendant would like to review a transcript in the hope of

identifying issues to be raised in a Section 2255 petition. A

transcript provided at government expense is not available under

such circumstances. See, e.g. Ellis v. State of Maine, 448 F.2d

1325, 1327 (1st Cir. 1971); 28 U.S.C. ss 753(f). 

/s/ Steven J. McAuliffe

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: March 20, 2008

cc: Ryan Cheney, pro se

Case 1:07-cr-00069-SM Document 19 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert Reid

v. Civil No. 04-cv-369-JD

Commissioner, New Hampshire

Department of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

 Defendant, albeit in disregard of LR 7.1(a)(1), moves for

reconsideration of the court’s May 19, 2005 order on plaintiff’s

August 4, 2004 motion to preserve evidence. First, defendant

says it never received the motion. Second, defendant says that

the parole board tape no longer exists and that it should not be

required to pay for or obtain superior court hearing transcripts

of limited, if any, relevance which it does not have in its

possession or control. The defendant’s motion (document no. 22)

is granted, the order of May 19th is withdrawn and plaintiff’s

motion (document no. 5) is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 8, 2005

cc: Robert A. Reid, pro se

 Mary E. Maloney, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00369-JD Document 23 Filed 06/08/05 Page 1 of 1
#### Mark F. POSTER, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

No. 03-3062.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 11, 2003.

Before (MICHEL, CLEVENGER and BRYSON, Circuit Judges).

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

*This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:*

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1717

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require Department of Veterans

Affairs pharmacies to dispense medications to veterans for prescriptions

written by private practitioners, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 3, 2001

Mr. KLECZKA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require Department of Veterans Affairs pharmacies to dispense medications to veterans for prescriptions written by private

practitioners, 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,
2

•HR 1717 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

2 AFFAIRS PHARMACIES TO DISPENSE MEDICA3 TIONS TO VETERANS ON PRESCRIPTIONS

4 WRITTEN BY PRIVATE PRACTITIONERS.

5 (a) AUTHORITY.—Subsection (d) of section 1712 of

6 title 38, United States Code, is amended to read as fol7 lows:

8 ‘‘(d) Subject to section 1722A of this title, the Sec9 retary shall furnish to a veteran such drugs and medicines

10 as may be ordered on prescription of a duly licensed physi11 cian in the treatment of any illness or injury of the vet12 eran.’’.

13 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—(1) The heading of

14 that section is amended by striking the sixth through

15 ninth words.

16 (2) The item relating to that section in the table of

17 sections at the beginning of chapter 17 of that title is

18 amended by striking the sixth through ninth words.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7764

GEORGE HENSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

J. N. DILLMAN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:07-cv-00694-REP)

Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 3, 2008

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Henson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

George Henson, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders

denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Henson v. Dillman, No. 3:07-

cv-00694-REP (E.D. Va. Nov. 23, 2007; Jan. 30, 2008). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### David T. KENT v. L. Ivy LEFEAUX et al.

No. 1625.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 7, 1936.

Taylor, Porter & Brooks, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Bouanchaud & Kearney, of New Roads, for appellees.

OTT, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the case of Mrs. Leona Smith Kent v. L. Ivy Lefeaux et al. (La.App.) 169 So. 793, this day decided, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from in this case of David T. Kent v. L. Ivy Lefeaux, et al., No. 1614 on the docket of the district court of Pointe Coupee parish, be, and the same is hereby, affirmed at the cost of appellant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-284-PB

Robert Cennami

 

O R D E R

The court finds reasonable cause to believe that the

defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease that

could affect his competency to participate in sentencing

proceedings. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241, 4247,

and with the consent of the parties, the court commits the

defendant to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a period

not to exceed 45 days to be placed in a suitable facility and

examined by a qualified psychiatrist. Following such

examination, the psychiatrist shall prepare a report to be filed

under seal addressing the defendant’s competency and whether he

presents a risk of suicide. This report shall also take into

account any medications the defendant is currently taking.

Case 1:05-cr-00284-PB Document 35 Filed 11/06/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 6, 2007

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Clyde Garrigan, AUSA

United States Probation

United Sates Marshal 

Case 1:05-cr-00284-PB Document 35 Filed 11/06/07 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Simulations Plus, Inc., a California
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended May 31, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Walter S.
Woltosz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Momoko A. Beran, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant
of ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to
his/her 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 result of operations of the Company.


/S/      WALTER S. WOLTOSZ
--------------------------
Walter S. Woltosz
Chief Executive Officer
July 11, 2006


/S/      MOMOKO A. BERAN
--------------------------
Momoko A. Beran
Chief Financial Officer
July 11, 2006

(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Simulations Plus, Inc. and will be retained by Simulations Plus,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.)
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1434 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1434

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore and make 
 permanent the exclusion from gross income for amounts received under 
qualified group legal services plans and to increase the maximum amount 
                           of the exclusion.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

 Mr. Camp (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Foley, Mr. Levin, Mr. Gordon, 
Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, and Mr. LaTourette) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore and make 
 permanent the exclusion from gross income for amounts received under 
qualified group legal services plans and to increase the maximum amount 
                           of the exclusion.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FOR AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER QUALIFIED GROUP LEGAL 
              SERVICES PLANS RESTORED AND MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 120 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Application of Section.--This section and section 501(c)(20) 
shall apply to taxable years beginning.--
            ``(1) after December 31, 1976, and before July 1, 1992, and
            ``(2) after December 31, 2001.''
    (b) Increase in Maximum Exclusion.--The last sentence of section 
120(a) of such Code is amended by striking ``$70'' and inserting 
``$150''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, theundersigned officer of Shermen WSC Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) herebycertifies that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                           |   | By:    |   /s/ Francis P. Jenkins, Jr.    |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Name:  | Francis P. Jenkins, Jr.                    |
|                      |   | Title: | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President |
| Date: March 28, 2008 |   |   |                                            |
|                           |        |        |                                                 |  |  |

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separatedisclosure document.

 

----
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1281

To declare the policy of the United States with respect to deployment of

a National Missile Defense System.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 2001

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

on Armed Services

A BILL

To declare the policy of the United States with respect

to deployment of a National Missile Defense System.

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 ‘‘Security Against Nu5 clear Enemies Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

7 The Secretary of Defense shall direct the Director of

8 the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to design and

9 deploy a land-based and sea-based National Missile De10 fense system capable of defending the national territory
2

•HR 1281 IH

1 of the United States against ballistic missile attack as

2 soon as technologically possible.

Æ