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

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 **ANNUALSTATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement datedas of July 1, 2018, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVINGCORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as MasterServicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTONTRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and PARKBRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset RepresentationsReviewer with respect to Benchmark 2018-B4 Mortgage Trust Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, Series 2018-B4 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section10.11 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.             Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from July 1,2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performanceper the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.             To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey M. Gray, et al.

v. Case No. 08-cv-443-PB

Lisa Sorenson and

Scott Sorenson

O R D E R

Three of the four parties in this action have appeared pro

se. They have filed a confusing array of motions that are

incomplete and poorly reasoned. From a review of the file, it

appears that most, if not all of plaintiffs’ claims are barred by

collateral estoppel, res judicata, or the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. 

In order to better assess the case, the court directs Lisa

Sorenson’s counsel to obtain and file within 30 days certified

copies of the docket sheets and all court orders entered in any

case filed in the Salem Family Division, the New Hampshire

Supreme Court, the York Maine Probate Court, the Biddeford

District Court and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court that in any

way bear on the subject matter of this litigation. 

Case 1:08-cv-00443-PB Document 115 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 2
All pending motions are denied without prejudice (Doc Nos.

94, 112, 113 and 114). No further pleadings shall be filed in

this action without prior court approval. The court will issue

further orders after it receives the information that counsel has

been ordered to produce. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 9, 2010

cc: Jeffrey M. Gray, pro se

Janette L. Gray, pro se

Daniel D. Lustenberger, Esq.

Scott L. Sorenson, Esq.

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-00443-PB Document 115 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.0



WRITTEN CERTIFICATION of

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER and CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer of EFJ, Inc. (the Company), each hereby certifies that, to the best of each of their knowledge that:



(1) the Companys Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/S/ Michael E. JalbertMichael E. JalbertChief Executive OfficerAugust 02, 2005/S/ Jana Ahlfinger BellJana Ahlfinger BellChief Financial OfficerAugust 02, 2005




The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Alexander Parks

v. Civil No. 07-cv-173-PB

Town of Hampton Falls,

New Hampshire, et al.

O R D E R

Pro se plaintiff William Alexander Parks brings this civil

rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations

under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution (document no. 1). Named as defendants are the Town

of Hampton Falls, New Hampshire (“Town of Hampton Falls”), the

Rockingham County Department of Corrections (“RCDOC”) and Albert

J. Wright, Superintendent of the RCDOC.

The complaint is before me for preliminary review to

determine whether, among other things, it states a claim upon

which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; U.S.

District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local Rule

(“LR”) 4.3(d)(2). For the reasons stated in the Report and

Recommendation issued simultaneously herewith, I find that Parks

has alleged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims for false

Case 1:07-cv-00173-JL Document 4 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 3
2

arrest against the unnamed arresting officer employed by the Town

of Hampton Falls. I further find that Parks has alleged a Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendment claim for false imprisonment against

Wright. I recommend dismissal of all remaining claims. 

With the exception of the unnamed arresting officer, Parks

has filed the necessary summons form, therefore, I order the

complaint to be served on the remaining defendant, Wright. The

Clerk’s office is directed to issue the necessary summons form

and forward to the United States Marshal for the District of New

Hampshire (the “U.S. Marshal’s office”) the summons and copies of

the complaint, the report and recommendation issued

simultaneously with this order, and this order. Upon receipt of

the necessary documentation, the U.S. Marshal’s office shall

effect service upon the defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). 

Defendants are instructed to answer or otherwise plead

within twenty days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 

Parks is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on

the defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or

Case 1:07-cv-00173-JL Document 4 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 3
3

their attorney(s), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 17, 2007

cc: William Alexander Parks, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00173-JL Document 4 Filed 10/17/07 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.1

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


In connection with the Meditech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Gerald
N. Kern, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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


By:  /s/  GERALD N. KERN
   -------------------------------
          GERALD N. KERN
          Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


August 27, 2004
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1753

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

419 Rutherford Avenue, N.E., in Roanoke, Virginia, as the ‘‘M. Caldwell

Butler Post Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 8, 2001

Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. SCHROCK,

Mr. SCOTT, Mr. GOODE, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. WOLF, and Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 419 Rutherford Avenue, N.E., in Roanoke,

Virginia, as the ‘‘M. Caldwell Butler Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. M. CALDWELL BUTLER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

5 Postal Service located at 419 Rutherford Avenue, N.E.,

6 in Roanoke, Virginia, shall be known and designated as

7 the ‘‘M. Caldwell Butler Post Office Building’’.
2

•HR 1753 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

4 be deemed to be a reference to the M. Caldwell Butler

5 Post Office Building.

Æ
#### Morgan SIMPSON and Anie B. Simpson, his wife, Appellants, v. Max H. HOFFMAN, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Nov. 12, 1954.

*704D. C. Laird, Lakeland, J. Tom Watson, Tampa, for appellants.

D. A. Troiano, Lakeland, for appellee.

MATHEWS, Justice.

There was filed in the County Judge’s Court of Polk County an unlawful detainer suit by the appellee against the appellants in this cause. The suit was dismissed by the County Judge on the ground that title to the property was involved. The appellants then filed a suit in the Circuit Court alleging an oral agreement with the ap-pellee for the purchase-of the tract of land in question, and claimed they had paid half of the "purchase price although the deed was taken in the name o.f the appellee. In seeking to impose a trust upon the property they claimed that they had a fifty percent interest in the property.

The appellee filed an answer denying all material allegations of the bill of complaint. He prayed for affirmative relief, that the Court would assume complete jurisdiction, declare that the trust had not been established, find against the appellants’ contention of the constructive trust, declare the defendant be the sole owner of the property, and require the plaintiffs to remove themselves from the premises.

The testimony in this case was taken before the Chancellor personally, after which he made and entered a final decree wherein the Court found thaf the plaintiffs had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish the allegations contained in their bill of complaint. In and by the said final decree the Court said:

> “It is the finding of this Court that in a suit to establish a constructive trust the. burden of proof is on the plaintiff and that the law of the State of Florida is that the evidence to establish such a trust must be so clear, strong and unequivocal, as to remove from the mind of the Chancellor every reasonable doubt as to the existence of the trust. Lightfoot v. Rogers [Fla.], 54 So.2d 237; Forrester v. Watts [73 Fla. 514], 74 So. 519; Hill v. Beacham [79 Fla. 430], 85 So. 147; Foster v. Thorntorn [131 Fla. 277], 179 So. 882; Elvins v. Seestedt [148 Fla. 408], 4 So.2d 532; Quinn v. Phipps [93 Fla. 805], 113 So. 419 [54 A.L.R. 1173]; Columbia Bank for Cooperatives v. Okeelanta Sugar Cooperative [Fla.], 52 So.2d 670.”

The Court in its final decree dismissed the bill of complaint and granted to the appellee the relief prayed for.

It does not appear that any reversible error was committed and the decree of the Chancellor should be and is hereby

Affirmed.

TERRELL, Acting C. J., and SEBRING and BIRD, JJ., concur.
<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.33

[PSP LOGO]                                          PUNE SOFTWARE PARK PVT. LTD.

E-mail: stppl@giaspn01.vsnl.net.in                   A-1, Technology Park, MIDC,
Web: www.punesoftwarepark.com                     Talawade, Pune - 412114, India
                                                      Tel.: +91 20 7691501 / 502
                                                             Fax: +91 20 7691500


                          EXTENSION OF LEASE AGREEMENTS

As per the mutual consent between Pune Software Park Pvt. Ltd. (PSP) and Kanbay
Software (I) Pvt. Ltd. (Kanbay), both parties are hereby agreeing to extend the
lease agreements as per the Schedules given in the Original Agreements for the
modules, particularly described in the respective agreements. The other terms
and conditions of these agreements pertaining to rent, utility and other charges
will remain unchanged until the new agreements are signed or till such date when
Kanbay buys out PSP or by 31st August 2004, whichever is earlier.

<Table>
<Caption>
  Module No. as per                                                    Original Agreement
  Original Agreement      Area in sq. fts.      Rent Rate Per hour         Expiry Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                      <C>                   <C>                     <C>
Module III (Ganga)       3,326.50 sq. fts.     Rs. 209/- per hour      31st July 2003
Module II (Yamuna)       3,326.50 sq. fts.     Rs. 209/- per hour      31st January 2004
Module I (Sarswati)      3,326.50 sq. fts.     Rs. 209/- per hour      30th November 2003
</Table>


For Pune Software Park Pvt. Ltd.            For Kanbay Software (I) Pvt. Ltd.


/s/ Authorized Party
Capt. Ravi Raman                            /s/ Rakesh Malani
(General Manager)                          (Authorised Signatory)

                                           RAKESH MALANI
                                           (General Manager - Finance)


[GRAPHIC]
11

A.7. Distribution of Dollar Amount of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, by Effective Interest RatePercent

Effective interest rate (percent)

Zero 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 

All to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 

Quarter rates 4.9 5.9 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 12.9 13.9 14.9 15.9 16.9 17.9 1994: Q2... 100 4.00 4.00 23.00 21.00 22.00 20.00 4.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 * * * 1995: Q2... 100 * * 3.00 14.00 11.00 35.00 24.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 * * .01 * 1996: Q2... 100 * 14.00 14.00 19.00 15.00 18.00 15.00 3.00 1.00 .01 .01 * .01 * 1997: Q2... 100 * .01 6.00 11.00 20.00 30.00 21.00 9.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 .01 * 1998: Q2... 100 * .01 3.00 14.00 31.00 30.00 14.00 7.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 1999: Q2... 100 .01 4.00 4.00 12.00 37.00 30.00 11.00 2.00 .01 .01 * .01 * * 2000: Q2... 100 .01 .01 .01 4.00 19.00 36.00 27.00 11.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 2001: Q2... 100 .01 3.00 8.00 29.00 31.00 22.00 5.00 2.00 .39 .07 .03 .01 * * 2002: Q2... 100 23.24 22.45 17.77 22.77 10.15 2.75 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2003: Q2... 100 27.25 23.90 21.19 18.64 6.55 1.77 .51 .08 .08 * .03 * * * 2004: Q2... 100 42.54 25.54 17.44 10.50 3.02 .61 .25 .02 .05 * .02 * * * 2005: Q2... 100 6.46 19.30 39.57 24.01 8.33 1.98 .19 .13 .02 * * .00 * * 2001: Q4... 100 21.20 32.80 13.60 16.40 10.50 4.10 .90 .30 .10 .00 .00 * * * 2002: Q1... 100 23.76 17.31 19.76 23.14 10.76 4.30 .80 .00 .00 * .00 .00 * .00  Q2... 100 23.24 22.45 17.77 22.77 10.15 2.75 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  Q3... 100 26.33 27.25 18.41 15.57 8.76 2.82 .49 .29 .06 * * * * *  Q4... 100 38.69 23.76 14.20 12.97 7.73 2.02 .44 .04 .04 .04 .02 .02 * * 2003: Q1... 100 37.28 22.16 18.64 14.73 4.88 1.72 .47 .02 .02 * * * * *  Q2... 100 27.25 23.90 21.19 18.64 6.55 1.77 .51 .08 .08 * .03 * * *  Q3... 100 41.83 23.79 18.38 11.11 3.67 .77 .22 .04 .04 .02 .02 .02 * *  Q4... 100 46.26 21.96 16.40 10.95 3.03 1.10 .25 * .02 * .02 * * * 2004: Q1... 100 43.84 22.35 17.33 11.30 3.56 1.16 .27 .05 .05 * .07 .02 * *  Q2... 100 42.54 25.54 17.44 10.50 3.02 .61 .25 .02 .05 * .02 * * *  Q3... 100 36.91 26.22 18.99 12.61 3.57 1.35 .27 .05 * .02 * * * *  Q4... 100 31.55 30.94 19.15 11.56 4.82 1.21 .67 .04 .02 .04 * * * * 2005: Q1... 100 11.07 19.85 27.21 29.30 11.22 1.06 .17 .13 * * * * .00 .00  Q2... 100 6.46 19.30 39.57 24.01 8.33 1.98 .19 .13 .02 * * .00 * *  Note. Non-real-estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks. Effective (compounded) annual interest from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. * Indicates value of zero. Source. Federal Reserve Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, conducted during the first full business week of the sequarter.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Oliver Hooper

v. Civil No. 08-cv-426-JD

Warden, Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

Oliver Hooper, while represented by counsel, filed a habeas

corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Within a year of filing

and while the Warden’s motion for summary judgment was pending,

Hooper’s counsel filed a notice that he had been suspended from

the practice of law and withdrew from the case. Hooper’s local

counsel eventually moved to withdraw from the case. 

Hooper is incarcerated and is now proceeding pro se. He has

filed a motion asking the court to appoint counsel to represent

him in his habeas proceeding. A petitioner for habeas relief

does not have a constitutional right to counsel. Pennsylvania v.

Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). The court, however, may

appoint counsel for a financially eligible person if “the

interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).

As a preliminary matter, Hooper must demonstrate that he is

a financially eligible person. He is not proceeding in forma

pauperis, and therefore, has not completed an affidavit

Case 1:08-cv-00426-JD Document 21 Filed 10/05/09 Page 1 of 2
2

demonstrating his financial status. Although he states in his

motion that he lacks funds to hire another attorney, he has not

provided an affidavit or other appropriate documentation of his

financial status. In the absence of such proof, Hooper does not

meet the financial requirement for § 3006A relief.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, before the court will consider

his motion for appointment of counsel, Hooper shall complete the

enclosed in forma pauperis form, which is an affidavit of his

financial status.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 5, 2009

cc: Oliver Hooper, pro se

Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Esquire

Case 1:08-cv-00426-JD Document 21 Filed 10/05/09 Page 2 of 2
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1866

AN ACT

To amend title 35, United States Code, to clarify

the basis for granting requests for reexaminationof patents.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1866

AN ACT

To amend title 35, United States Code, to clarify the basis

for granting requests for reexamination of patents.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1866 EH

1 SECTION 1. DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUES2 TION OF PATENTABILITY IN REEXAMINATION

3 PROCEEDINGS.

4 Sections 303(a) and 312(a) of title 35, United States

5 Code, are each amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: ‘‘The existence of a substantial new question of

7 patentability is not precluded by the fact that a patent

8 or printed publication was previously cited by or to the

9 Office or considered by the Office.’’.

10 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

11 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with

12 respect to any determination of the Director of the United

13 States Patent and Trademark Office that is made under

14 section 303(a) or 312(a) of title 35, United States Code,

15 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives September 5,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2030

To prohibit issuance of a visa, or admission to the United States, of any

physician who is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China and who

seeks to enter for the purpose of training in organ or bodily tissue

transplantation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 2001

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, and Mr. CHABOT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To prohibit issuance of a visa, or admission to the United

States, of any physician who is a citizen of the People’s

Republic of China and who seeks to enter for the purpose

of training in organ or bodily tissue transplantation.

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

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary

4 of State shall not issue an immigrant or nonimmigrant

5 visa to, and the Attorney General shall not admit to the

6 United States, any physician (as such term is used in Im7 migration and Nationality Act) who is a citizen of the Peo-
2

•HR 2030 IH

1 ple’s Republic of China who seeks the visa or admission

2 to the United States for the purpose of training in organ

3 or bodily tissue transplantation.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,245
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,732)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,684
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,025
<PP&E>                                         250,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                (75,955)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 350,966
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,358
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           196
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   350,966
<SALES>                                         61,420
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,420
<CGS>                                           32,526
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,461
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,797
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,664
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,664
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19


</TABLE>