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

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification. 

I, J. TheodoreBorter, 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 bythis report on Form 10-K of the GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2011-GC5 (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 informationrequired 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 knowledgeand the servicer compliance statements 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 allmaterial respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestationreports 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 anexhibit 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, NationalAssociation, as Master Servicer, Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator, U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian, PentalphaSurveillance, LLC, as Operating Advisor, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant, and National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant. 

Dated: March 28, 2014 

/s/ J. Theodore Borter 

Signature 

President 

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         A TRIBUTE TO JOHN BUDD

                                 ______

                             HON. VIC FAZIO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 23, 1995
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my sincere 
condolences to the family of John Budd, the Regional Liaison for the 
Bureau of Reclamation's Mid-Pacific Regional Office in Sacramento, CA. 
John passed away on April 18. His loss is a tremendous blow to the 
Bureau and to the Federal service.
  In many ways, John Budd was the Bureau of Reclamation in Sacramento. 
He was responsible for communicating the Bureau's policies, programs, 
and activities to congressional, State and local decisionmakers. He was 
the face that went with the Bureau.
  John was always very helpful to me and my staff. John had a 
tremendous instinct when it came to seeing issues developing on the 
horizon. John was almost always the first person to give me a ``heads 
up'' on problems so we could deal with them before they reached the 
crisis stage.
  John was a long-time Bureau employee. He joined the Bureau in 1965 as 
part of the construction crew for the San Luis Unit. Prior to his 
appointment as Regional Liaison, John was a repayment specialist 
responsible for negotiating and administering water service and 
repayment contracts for water deliveries from the Central Valley 
Project. John's fellow employees honored him many times during his 
years of service, perhaps most notably with the Department of 
Interior's prestigious Superior Service Award.
  The formal accolades are important because they are the official 
markers of John's distinguished career. The real touchstone of John's 
career is the lasting impression he made on the lives of the people who 
surrounded him.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have had the opportunity to work with John 
Budd. We will all miss his professionalism, but more importantly, we 
will miss his friendship.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,871
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     27,841
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,285
<PP&E>                                          11,350
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,104
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,931
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,826
<OTHER-SE>                                         109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,583
<SALES>                                         40,111
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,284
<CGS>                                           24,428
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    45
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        12
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 31
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        19
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 15.3
 ENVOY COMMUNICATIONS GROUP INC.  Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Charter
 I.
    
    Purpose
  A.
    
    developing and implementing the Companys corporate governance guidelines;B.
    
    identifying individuals qualified to become Board members;C.
    
    determining the composition of the Board of Directors and its Committees;D.
    
    assess the effectiveness of the Board of Directors and its Committees; andE.
    
    monitoring a process to assess Board and Committees, including their respective
Chairman, effectiveness.
 II.
    
    Duties and Responsibilities
  A.
    
    Corporate Governance
 1.
    
    Report to the Board of Directors annually on matters of corporate
governance, including standards of performance for Directors, the size of the
Board, structure, responsibility and composition of Board Committees and merits of
shareholder proposals.2.
    
    Develop and recommend to the Board of Directors a set of corporate
governance guidelines including the Board of Directors mandate, applicable to the
Company for inclusion in the Companys public disclosure documents, in accordance
with applicable laws and regulations and review such guidelines periodically, but
not less than annually, and recommend changes as deemed necessary.




---



##### 



B.
    
    Directors
 1.
    
    Consider and recommend for approval by the Board of Directors
candidates for election or appointment to the Board of Directors.2.
    
    Develop and recommend to the Board of Directors appropriate
qualifications/criteria for the selection of Board of Directors members, including
criteria for determining director independence.3.
    
    Assist newly appointed members of the Board of Directors in becoming
acquainted with the Company and its governance process and provide orientation and
continuing education for all members of the Board of Directors.
 III.
    
    Evaluation of the Board of Directors, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and
other Committees of the Board of Directors and Report to the Board of Directors
 A.
    
    The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee shall, on an annual basis:
 1.
    
    Undertake surveys of all directors to allow each director to assess
the effectiveness and performance of (i) the Board of Directors and its Chairman;
(ii) the Committees of the Board of Directors and their respective Chairman, as
well as to appraise his or her own participation on the Board of Directors and
report to the Board of Directors the results of such assessment.2.
    
    Evaluate, review and report to the Board of Directors the performance
of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.
 B.
    
    The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee shall report to the Board of
Directors periodically on the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees
activities.
 IV.
    
    Outside advisors




---



##### 



V.
    
    Membership
  VI.
    
    Term
  VII.
    
    Procedures for meetings
  VIII.
    
    Quorum and voting
  IX.
    
    Secretary
  X.
    
    Vacancies




---



##### 



XI.
    
    Records
EXHIBIT 10.20.1



 Exhibit 10.20.1 
  
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
  
 TO 
  
 PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
  
 This FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of November 24, 2003, between RLJ Tampa Hotel, LLC
(“Seller”) and HIGHLAND HOSPITALITY, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Purchaser”). 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 WHEREAS, Seller and Barceló Crestline Corporation (“Barceló Crestline”) have entered into that certain Purchase Agreement dated as of October 10, 2003 (the “Original Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Barceló Crestline has assigned all of its right, title and
interest in and to the Original Agreement to Purchaser pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated as October 23, 2003; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Purchaser and Seller have agreed to amend certain provisions of the Original Agreement. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  
 AGREEMENT 
  
 1. The date “November 24, 2003” in Section 6.2(b) of the Agreement is hereby changed to 5:00 p.m. E.S.T. “November 26, 2003.”

  
 Except as amended by Section 1 above, the Original Agreement
is unchanged and remains in full force and effect. 
  
 3. This
Amendment may be executed in separate counterparts, the signatures on which may be by facsimile, none of which need contain the signatures of all parties, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which taken together constitute
one and the same instrument. It shall not be necessary in making proof of this Amendment to produce or account for more than the number of counterparts containing the respective signatures of, or on behalf of, all of the parties hereto. 







  
  
 [Signatures on Following Page] 
  
  
  
  

 2 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Purchaser have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first above
written. 
  

	 SELLER:
  
 RLJ TAMPA HOTEL, LLC

		
	By:	 	/s/ Thomas J. Baltimore, Jr.
	 	

	 	 	 Name: Thomas J. Baltimore, Jr.
 Title:
President
  

	
	 PURCHASER:
  
 HIGHLAND HOSPITALITY, L.P.
  
 By: Highland Hospitality Corporation,
 Its General
Partner

		
	By:	 	/s/ Tracy M. J. Colden
	 	

	 	 	 Name: Tracy M. J. Colden
 Title: Executive
Vice President



  
 Acknowledged And 
 Agreed: 
  

	BARCELÓ CRESTLINE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Tracy M. J. Colden
	 	

	 	 	 Name: Tracy M. J. Colden
 Title: Executive
Vice President


  

 3
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 76 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 76

   Disapproving the issuance of a letter of offer with respect to a 
 certain proposed sale of defense articles and defense services to the 
                        Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2008

   Mr. Weiner (for himself, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Baca, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. 
 Berkley, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
 Braley of Iowa, Ms. Castor, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Costello, Mr. Crowley, Mr. 
   Cummings, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Filner, Mr. 
 Grijalva, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr. Hare, Mr. Hastings 
   of Florida, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Holt, Mr. Jones of North 
 Carolina, Mr. Kagen, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. Kucinich, 
  Ms. Lee, Mr. Lipinski, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Michaud, Mrs. 
Myrick, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Rothman, Ms. Linda T. 
 Sanchez of California, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Schwartz, Ms. Shea-Porter, 
    Mr. Stark, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Towns, Ms. Wasserman 
    Schultz, Ms. Waters, Mr. Wexler, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Wu, and Mrs. 
Tauscher) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                  to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Disapproving the issuance of a letter of offer with respect to a 
 certain proposed sale of defense articles and defense services to the 
                        Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the issuance of a letter 
of offer with respect to the proposed sale of defense articles and 
defense services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (described in the 
certifications transmitted to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations 
of the Senate pursuant to section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act 
on January 14, 2008 (Transmittal Number 08-18)) is hereby prohibited.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHARLES LYDAMORE.

February 28, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 379 

To rescind $45 billion of unobligated discretionary appropriations, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2013 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. LEE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. THUNE, and 

Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To rescind $45 billion of unobligated discretionary 

appropriations, 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 ‘‘Decrease Spending 

5 Now Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 379 IS

1 SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF UNOBLIGATED DISCRETIONARY AP2 PROPRIATIONS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Of the unobligated balances of 

4 discretionary appropriations on the date of enactment of 

5 this Act, $45,000,000,000 is rescinded. 

6 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office of 

8 Management and Budget shall determine which ap9 propriation accounts the rescission under subsection 

10 (a) shall apply to and the amount that each such ac11 count shall be reduced by pursuant to such rescis12 sion. 

13 (2) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after the 

14 date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of 

15 the Office of Management and Budget shall submit 

16 a report to the Secretary of the Treasury and Con17 gress listing the accounts reduced by the rescission 

18 in subsection (a) and the amounts rescinded from 

19 each such account. 

20 (c) EXCEPTIONS.—The rescission under subsection 

21 (a) shall not apply to the Department of Defense, the De22 partment of Veterans Affairs, or the Social Security Ad23 ministration. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00686- CV

Gr eg Abbott, At torney G eneral of the State of Texas, Appellan t
v. City of Dallas, Ap pellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 419 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GV-1 0-0 0083 6, H ONO RAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N
Irespe ctfully

dissent. I agr ee wi th the well-re asoned opinion of the Amarillo Court of Appea ls in C i t y of Dallas v. Abbott , 279 S. W
. 3 d 806 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 2007), rev’ d on other grounds , 304 S.W .3d 380 (Tex. 2010). There , t h e co u rt held that the mere fac t that reque sted materia ls constitute attorney -client comm u n i ca t i o n is not enoug h, by itself, to demonstrate a “compe lling
rea son” t o withhold disclosure unde r sec tion 552.302 of t he Government C ode. Id. at 810-12. I n the prese nt case , the City prese nted no evidenc e whatsoeve r that a disclosure of the materia ls would harm third parties and only vag ue, specula tive evidenc e that the City itself could be harme d. For all intents and purposes, the C ity relied ex clusively on the fa ct that the m ater ials arg uably fell wit hin the attorney -client privileg e. I do not believe that is enoug h. Acc ording ly , I do not believe the City met its burden of c onclusively showing a “c ompelling r eason” for nondisclosure
.The majority relies on a statement contained in a footnote in City of Garland v. Dallas

Morning News , 22 S.W .3d 3 5 1 , 3 6 0 n . 5 (Tex. 2000). But not only was the ref ere nced statement dictum (as the majority conce des), it was dictum in a plurality opinion. P l u ra l ity opinions have virtually no prec edential value. See University of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Y ork , 871 S.W .2d 175, 176-77 (Te x . 1994).

Iwould reve rse the tr ial court’s judg ment.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Filed: De cembe r 23, 2014

2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT In the Interest of J.B., L.C., and A.M, ) children. ) ) ) S.L., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-230 ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN and ) FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM ) PROGRAM, ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed May 25, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly Hernandez Vance, Judge. Norman A. Palumbo, Jr., Tampa, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mary Soorus, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee Department of Children and Families. Mikalla Andies Davis, Tallahassee, and Thomasina Moore and Laura J. Lee, Sanford, for Appellee Guardian Ad Litem Program. PER CURIAM.- 2 - Affirmed. CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
* Senior Judge Butzner did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2274
BETTY T. GORDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-50) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, * Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Betty T. Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Kyle Epps, Hill B. Wellford, Jr., Wood Walter Lay, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101-12213 (West 1990) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gordon v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. , No. CA-94- 50 (W. D. Va. May 26, 1995). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID KENT FITCH, a.k.a. David Lee 

Krause, a.k.a. Daniel Joseph O’Hare, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

CALVIN JOHNSON, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-55658 

D.C. No. 5:16-cv-01227-DOC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018**

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner David Kent Fitch appeals pro se from the district court’s 

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Fitch contends that he is entitled to credit against his current sentence for the 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 14 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-55658

time spent in custody from February 8, 2000, through February 22, 2007. 

According to Fitch, he is entitled to this sentencing credit under Zavala v. Ives, 785 

F.3d 367 (9th Cir. 2015), and Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) policy statements, and 

because his first sentence had not been discharged when his current sentence was 

imposed. Reviewing de novo, see id. at 370, we conclude that the district court did 

not err in denying Fitch relief. 

The time that Fitch seeks to apply to his current sentence was credited 

towards an earlier sentence, and therefore he is not entitled to any additional credit. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992). 

Zavala does not compel a contrary result. The record shows that Fitch’s first 

sentence was discharged by the time the district court imposed the current 

sentence, and therefore his current sentence cannot run concurrently to his first 

sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). Finally, any alleged non-compliance with 

BOP policy statements cannot support section 2241 relief. See Reeb v. Thomas, 

636 F.3d 1224, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 2011).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider 

arguments as to the timing of the prosecutions that Fitch raised for the first time in 

his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Brown v. 

Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir. 2002). In addition, because the record 

conclusively shows that Fitch was not entitled to relief under section 2241, no 
3 17-55658

evidentiary hearing was required. See Anderson v. United States, 898 F.2d 751, 

753 (9th Cir.1990).

Fitch’s motion for release pending appeal is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.