alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1






                                  EXHIBIT 3.1

              AMENDMENT TO THE COMPANY'S ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                       OF ABR INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
<PAGE>   2
                          ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO THE
                           ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                         ABR INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.


        Pursuant to the provisions of Section 607.1006 of the Florida Statutes,
the undersigned corporation adopts the following Articles of Amendment to its
Articles of Incorporation for the purpose of increasing the number of
authorized shares of voting Common Stock pursuant to Section 607.0602 of the
Florida Statutes:

        1.   Name of Corporation.  The name of the corporation is ABR
             Information Services, Inc.

        2.   Amendments.  The Articles of Incorporation of the corporation are
             amended by deleting the first two sentences of Section 3.1 of 
             Article III in their entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the 
             following:


                                  ARTICLE III

             Section 3.1 "The total number of shares of all classes of capital
             stock that the Corporation shall have the authority to issue shall
             be 102,250,000 shares, of which 100,250,000 shares shall be Common
             Stock having a par value of $0.01 per share ("Common Stock") and
             2,000,000 shares shall be Preferred Stock having a par value of
             $0.01 per share ("Preferred Stock"). Of the Common Stock,
             100,000,000 shares shall be voting shares ("Voting Common Stock")
             and 250,000 shares shall be nonvoting shares ("Nonvoting Common
             Stock"). . . ."  


        3.   Adoption of Amendment.  The amendment was adopted at a duly called
             meeting of the shareholders on December 6, 1996 at which a quorum
             appeared. Of the shares represented at the shareholders meeting,
             6,076,639 shares were voted in favor of adoption of the amendment,
             3,501,750 shares were voted against adoption of the amendment, and
             40,035 shares abstained from voting on the proposal. There are no
             voting groups authorized to vote separately on the amendment, and
             the number of votes cast for adoption of the amendment was
             sufficient for approval pursuant to Section 607.1004 of the Florida
             Statutes.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
 (B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
   May 16, 2011
    
    /s/ David T. StonerDate
    
    David T. Stoner 

Chief Executive Officer
#### Yolanda Marie EBARB v. Philip David MATLOCK, et al.

No. 2011-C-1272.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re American States Insurance Company; Matlock, Philip David et al.; — Defendants); Applying For Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 131,287; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,243-CA.

Denied.
#### Tony HOWARD, Petitioner, v. Angela B. COREY, State Attorney, etc., Respondent.

No. 1D11-1012.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 15, 2011.

Rehearing Denied May 31, 2011.

Tony Howard, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *See Smartt v. First Union Nat’l Bank,*771 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

BENTON, C.J., WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans will meet October 26-28, 2010, at the Hilton Garden Inn, in the Georgetown Ballroom, 815 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. until 4 p.m. each day. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding the needs of women Veterans with respect to health care, rehabilitation, compensation, outreach, and other programs and activities administered by VA designed to meet such needs. The Committee makes recommendations to the Secretary regarding such programs and activities.

                    The agenda will include updates on recommendations from the 2010 report; updates from the Veterans Benefits Administration, the Veterans Health Administration, the National Cemetery                           ( print page 61861)                        Administration; and briefings on mental health, prosthetic services for women Veterans, readjustment counseling, women Veterans' legislative issues, special health initiatives, women Veterans' research, rural health, and homeless initiatives for women Veterans.                

                    Interested persons may attend, appear before, or file statements with the Committee. Any member of the public wishing to attend or provide written statements should contact Ms. Shannon L. Middleton at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Women Veterans (00W), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, or phone at (202) 461-6193, fax at (202) 273-7092, and e-mail at                     *00W@mail.va.gov.*                     Written statements must be filed before the meeting, or within 10 days after the meeting.                

Dated: September 30, 2010.

By Direction of the Secretary.

Vivian Drake,

Acting Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-25051 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
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





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Cenveo, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the ‘‘Company’’),
does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:









The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine month periods ended
September 27, 2008 (the ‘‘Form 10-Q’’) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
November 5, 2008
 /s/ Robert
G. Burton, Sr.


Robert G.
Burton, Sr.


Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer





Date:
November 5, 2008


/s/ Mark
S. Hiltwein


Mark S.
Hiltwein


Chief
Financial Officer







A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Cenveo, Inc. and will be retained by
Cenveo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q
or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Dennis ALBRITTON, Mona Albritton and Timothy Albritton o/b/o Donald Albritton (D) v. Greg SALARD, M.D., John Reeves, M.D. and Glenwood Regional Medical Center.

No. 2009-CC-2645.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 19, 2010.

Hudson, Potts & Bernstein, LLP, Gordon L. James, Amanda Jill Futch, Monroe, for Applicant.

Nelson *&*Hammons, APLC, John Layne Hammmons, Cornell Rushing Flournoy, Shreveport, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & MeCollister, David Alva Woolridge, Jr., Carlton Jones, III, Baton Rouge, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.*

We granted defendant’s application for a writ of certiorari in this case on April 23, 2010. After hearing oral arguments and reviewing the record of the matter, we conclude the judgment below does not require the exercise of this court’s superviso*272ry authority. Accordingly, we recall our order of April 23, 2010 as improvidently granted, and we deny defendant’s writ application.

VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., dissents and assign reasons.

*

 Retired Judge Philip C. Ciaccio, assigned as Justice *ad hoc,*sitting for Chief Justice Catherine D. Kimball.

WEIMER, J.,

dissenting.

hi respectfully dissent. Although I believe the trial court and court of appeal did not err, I would not recall the writ after it had been granted.

VICTORY, J.,

dissenting.

hi dissent from the per curiam opinion recalling our prior grant of defendant’s writ application. In my view, the Court should have authored a full opinion to consider the issues presented in this case.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2014, by andamong GS MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION II, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as SpecialServicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Operating Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator and DEUTSCHE BANK TRUSTCOMPANY AMERICAS, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2014-GC22 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.07 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.  A review of theactivities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.  To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
(logo)Rialto 

         CAPITAL

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

Pooling andServicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of June 1,2014 by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation asDepositor, KeyBank National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association asTrustee, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator,Paying Agent and Custodian and Situs Holdings, LLC as Operating Advisorrelating to the Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, COMM2014-CCRE18 Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates **(COMM2014-CCRE18)**

  

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.     Allservicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.     Areview of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.     Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ Adam Singer 

AdamSinger, Managing Director 

 

Date: March 1, 2018
#### Nathaniel ARMSTRONG, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-0746.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 21, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 5, 2010.

Nathaniel Armstrong, Jr., pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Giselle Denise Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED as duplicative.

HAWKES, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAULA RAMSUM, an unmarried person,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

WALTER FRENZEL; JANE DOE

FRENZEL; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,

NA, successor to Washington Mutual

Bank,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-35371

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01152-RSM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 1, 2015

Seattle, Washington

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Paula Ramsum appeals the district court decision dismissing her action for

judicial foreclosure against property in Whatcom County, Washington, that was

formerly owned by her ex-husband. 

FILED

JUN 16 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
 We review de novo dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Wilson v.

Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012). In light of the

Washington statutes at issue in this case, we affirm. See Wash. Rev. Code 

§§ 4.64.030, 65.04.045, 65.04.047, 26.18.020, 26.18.055, 26.21.480, 26.21.490. 

Because Ramsum did not identify or describe her ex-husband’s former property in

the documents she filed with the Whatcom County Auditor’s Office, she did not

substantially comply with the requirements for recording liens against real

property. See Kim v. Lee, 9 P.3d 245, 249 (Wash. App. Ct. 2000), rev’d on other

grounds, 31 P.3d 665 (Wash. 2001) (en banc) (“Washington courts have long

upheld actions taken in substantial compliance with statutory requirements, albeit

with procedural imperfections. Substantial compliance requires ‘actual compliance

in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of [the] statute.’”

(quoting City of Seattle v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 809 P.2d 1377, 1380

(Wash. 1991) (en banc))). 

 The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it denied Ramsum’s

motion to vacate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 253

(9th Cir. 1995) (“This Court reviews a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for relief

from judgment under an abuse of discretion standard.”). Ramsum could have

made the legal argument set forth in her motion to vacate in response to JP Morgan

2
Chase’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Allmerica Fin. Life Ins. & Annuity

Co. v. Llewellyn, 139 F.3d 664, 666 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that “[n]either

ignorance nor carelessness on the part of the litigant or his attorney provide

grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).” (internal citation omitted)). Regardless,

the statute Ramsum relied on in her Rule 60(b) motion—Wash. Rev. Code 

§ 65.04.047—does not alter the outcome.

AFFIRMED.

3
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Brett D. Davis, 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 CNH Equipment Trust 2014-B (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.             I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement 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: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.

 

----

 
| March 30,   2015 |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
|                  |   |
|                  | By:    | /s/   Brett D. Davis |
|                  | Name:  | Brett   D. Davis |
|                  | Title: | President   (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |

* *

----
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-10664

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEITH W. BLACK,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CR-324-ALL

_________________________________________________________________

April 4, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Keith Black appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to the

fraudulent use of a social security number and to being a felon in

possession of a firearm. Black argues that the district court

erred when it used the categorical approach set forth by this court

in United States v. Galvan-Rodriguez, 169 F.3d 217, 219 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 100 (1999), to determine that his prior

conviction for the unlawful taking of a vehicle was a crime of

violence for sentence enhancement purposes under U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(a)(2).
2

This court need not reach the issue whether the court’s

approach was incorrect because, under the “residual clause” of 

§ 4B1.2(a)(2), Black’s underlying conviction was a crime of

violence given that he stole the car at gunpoint. See United

States v. Kirk, 111 F.3d 390, 394 (5th Cir. 1997).

A F F I R M E D.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of 
our report dated May 14, 1997 on the combined statements of operations, 
shareholder's equity and cash flows of Carter-Crowley Asset Group for the year 
ended December 31, 1996, included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's 
previously filed Registration Statement File No. 333-57891. It should be noted 
that we have not audited any financial statements of Carter-Crowley Asset Group 
subsequent to December 31, 1996 or performed any audit procedures subsequent to 
the date of our report.

                                             /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Dallas, Texas
  March 29, 1999
#### STATE ex rel. Christopher KING v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1771.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re King, Christopher; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 3732-00, 3733-GO; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01054.

Denied.
#### Michael SAMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-1057.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 23, 2010.

Michael Sampson, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Giselle Denise Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant asserts that his aggravated battery conviction was improperly reclassified from a second to a first-degree felony based on the use of a weapon, because use of a weapon is an essential element of aggravated battery.

If an aggravated battery conviction arises merely from the use of a weapon, and not because of great bodily harm, reclassification is prohibited, as use of a weapon is an essential element of the charge. *See Thomas v. State,*932 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Perry *v. State,*858 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Where it is unclear whether the defendant was found guilty of aggravated battery based on great bodily harm or the use of a *367deadly weapon, enhancement is not permitted. *See Perry,*858 So.2d at 1272 (citing *Montgomery v. State,*704 So.2d 548, 550-51 (Fla. 1st DCA1997)).

Here, the record does not refute Appellant’s claim that his aggravated battery sentence was improperly enhanced. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of Appellant’s first claim and remand for record attachments which conclusively refute Appellant’s claim or to resentence Appellant. The remaining claims are affirmed without further discussion.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

THOMAS, ROBERTS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.