alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**D1086-120, 12th Floor550 South Tyron StreetCharlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2014, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC as Operating Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM 2014-UBS3 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master 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 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
#### Edmond David BELCHER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-3466.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 11, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 2010.

Edmond David Belcher, pro se, Petitioner.

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

*283PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

HAWKES, C.J., ROBERTS and ROWE, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 10.11**

**RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD GRANT PROGRAM**

**FOR**

**NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTORS**

**UNDER THE**

**MERIX CORPORATION 1994 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN**

The following provisions set forth the terms of the restricted stock award program (the “**Program**”) for nonemployee directors of Merix Corporation (the “**Company**”) under the Company’s 1994 StockIncentive Plan (the “**Plan**”). The following terms are intended to supplement, not alter or change, the provisions of the Plan, and in the event of any inconsistency between the terms contained herein and in the Plan, the Plan shallgovern. All capitalized terms that are not defined herein shall be as defined in the Plan. 

**1. Eligibility**

Each director of the Company elected or appointed to the Board who is not, and has not been within one year of any date as of which a determination of eligibility ismade, an employee of the Company or any Related Company (an “**Eligible Director**”) shall be eligible to receive New Grants and Annual Grants under the Plan, as discussed below. 

**2. New Grants**

Each Eligible Director shall automatically receive aRestricted Stock Award for shares of Common Stock (“**New Grant**”) upon such Eligible Director’s initial election or appointment to the Board. The number of shares granted will be determined by dividing $10,000 by the fairmarket value of a share of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant. 

**3. Annual Grants**

Each Eligible Director shall automatically receive a Restricted Stock Award for shares of Common Stock on each anniversary of such Eligible Director’s initialelection or appointment to the Board (each, an “**Annual Grant**”). The number of shares granted will be determined by dividing $10,000 by the fair market value of a share of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant.

**4. Vesting and Restriction on Sale of Shares**

The NewGrants and Annual Grants shall be fully vested on the grant date, but will be subject to a restricted stock award agreement between the Company and each recipient prohibiting the sale or other disposition of such shares so long as the recipientremains a director of the Company. The agreement will also provide that any director who resigns from the Board 

without the consent of a majority of the Board of Directors then in office will forfeit all such stock awards. 

**5. Amendment**

The Board may amend the provisions contained herein insuch respects as it deems advisable. Any such amendment shall not, without the consent of the Eligible Director, materially adversely affect any rights of an Eligible Director under an outstanding option. 

**6. Effective Date**

The Program shall become effective onJanuary 1, 2006.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

RAYMOND MICHAEL MATTSON , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1024

[ February 21, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit ; Palm Beach County

, Samantha Schosberg

- Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2017

- CF

- 000602

- AXXX

- MB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Anderson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jos eph D. Coronato, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

W ARNER , D AMOORGIAN and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Dexter W. WHITE, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNEIL, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D10-2598.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 16, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 2, 2010.

Dexter W. White, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See Baker v. State,*878 So.2d 1286 (Fla.2004).

DAVIS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
No. 13,839.

#### Parker *v.*The State.

Cbimibal *Law.*— Assault *and Battery.*— Affidavit.—Sufficiency *of.*— An affidavit charging that the defendant “ did, in a rude, insolent, angry and unlawful manner, touch, beat and strike ” the affiant, shows that the touching and striking were unlawful, and the pleading is not had, although the word “unlawful” is not in the place usually assigned it.

From the LaGrange Circuit Court.

*O. L. Ballou, J. D. Ferrall*and *C. H. Hulburt,*for appellant.

*L. T. Michener,*Attorney General, and *J. H. Gillett,*for the State.

*329Filed April 19, 1889.

Elliott, C. J.

The charging part of the affidavit on which the appellant was tried and convicted reads thus: *“*That the defendant, John W. Parker, at said county of La-Grange, in the State of Indiana, did, in a rude, insolent, .angry and unlawful manner, touch, beat and strike him, the said George W. Wright.” We perceive no substantial defect in this affidavit. The word “ unlawful ” is not in its ■usual and appropriate position, but, as it is in the affidavit, the fact that it is not in the position usually assigned it does ■not vitiate the pleading.

Appellant’s counsel are in error in assuming that the affidavit fails to show that the touching and striking were unlawful.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Lednum *v.*State.

Opinion delivered October 5, 1925.

Perjury — false affidavit — materiality.—An indictment for perjury alleging that accused falsely made affidavit before a justice of the peace of a certain township and county that he saw a person named making whiskey, without stating where he was making it, is insufficient in failing to show that the false affidavit related to a (material matter.

Appeal from Clay Circuit Court, Western District; *W. W. Bandy,*Judge;

reversed.

*Raley & Ashbaugh,*for appellant.

*II. W. Applegate,*Attorney General, and *Darden Moose, Assistant,*for appellee.

Humphreys, J.

Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of perjury in the Western District of Clay County; and, as a punishment therefor, was adjudged to serve a term of one year in the State penitentiary. Prom the judgment of conviction, appellant has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court, relying mainly for a reversal of the judgment upon the alleged insufficiency .of the evidence to sustain the charge of perjury. We agree with appellant in this contention. The basis of the charge was an affidavit which appellant made before Otto Sullins, a duly qualified .justice of the peace of Kilgore township, in the Western District of Clay County. The affidavit is as follows:

> “I, W. H. Lednum, saw ‘Charley Powers making whiskey on or about July 15, 1923. I have seen Charley Powers making whiskey some -six or seven times, and I have drank some of it more than once.

> “W. H. Lednum.

> “Subscribed and sworn to before me this August 1, 1923. Otto Sullins, J. P.”

This wias the only evidence appellant gave before said justice of the peace, and it was alleged in the indictment that he unlawfully, wilfully, corruptly, falsely, knowingly, voluntarily, and feloniously made the affidavit. Section 2588 of Crawford *&*Moses’ Digest defines perjury as follows:

> *397“ Perjury is the wilful and corrupt swearing, testifying or affirming falsely to any material matter in any case, matter or proceeding in any court, tribunal, body corporate or other officer having by law authority to administer oaths.”

According to this definition, the materiality of the alleged false testimony must have appeared in the affidavit. It should have shown on its face that appellant saw Charley Powers making whiskey in Clay County. It was necessary for the venue to appear in the affidavit to make the subject-matter contained therein material. It was entirely immaterial if appellant saw Charley Powers making whiskey in some other county.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge appellant.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 10-47, 10-48, and 10-51]

# AGENCY:

Defense Security Cooperation Agency, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of three section 36(b)(1) arms sales notifications to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164, dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The following are copies of letters to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 10-20, 10-23, and 10-42 with associated attachments.

Dated: September 29, 2010.

Mitchell S. Bryman,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

## Transmittal No. 10-47

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 10-47 with attached transmittal and policy justification.
      ( print page 61441)          ( print page 61442)          ( print page 61443)    

## Transmittal No. 10-48

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 10-48 with attached transmittal and policy justification.
      ( print page 61444)          ( print page 61445)          ( print page 61446)    

## Transmittal No. 10-51

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 10-51 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and sensitivity of technology.
      ( print page 61447)          ( print page 61448)          ( print page 61449)          ( print page 61450)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

[FR Doc. 2010-24843 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATE
      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 Quarterly Report of Targeted Genetics Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities & Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      H. Stewart Parker., President 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 my 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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/
                H. Stewart ParkerH.
                Stewart ParkerPresident and Chief Executive OfficerOctober 31, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




This
      certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      as
      Exhibit 32.1 to the Form 10-Q 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 in accordance
      with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K. This certification is not being
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      and is not and should not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into the
      Form 10-Q or any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
Exhibit 32.2

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANTTOSECTION 906**

**OFTHESARBANES-OXLEYACT**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terry L. Stevens, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ TERRYL.STEVENS                                                |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Terry L. StevensSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| August 8, 2008                                          |   |

 

 

52
A93A1353.

#### WOODS v. THE STATE.

(432 SE2d 249)

Decided June 2, 1993.

*Jack F. Witcher,*for appellant.

*George C. Turner, Jr., District Attorney, Donald N. Wilson, James E. Barker, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant Woods appeals his conviction of two counts of burglary, one count of criminal damage to property in the second degree, and one count of attempted burglary. *Held:*

At trial, the State presented evidence that each of the crimes with which defendant was charged had occurred during the early morning hours of November 21, 1991. The only evidence that defendant had any part in the commission of the crimes was presented through the testimony of a juvenile accomplice who was apprehended when police investigated a suspicious vehicle. The juvenile’s companion in the vehicle was neither apprehended nor identified.

“ ‘ “Although a defendant may not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, OCGA § 24-4-8, slight evidence of a defendant’s identity and participation from an extraneous source is all that is required to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony, and thus, support the verdict. (Cit.)” (Cit.)’ *Sanchez v. State,*203 Ga. App. 61, 62 (1) (416 SE2d 139) (1992). ‘Sufficient corroboration may consist of either direct or circumstantial evidence which connects the defendant with the crime, tends to show his participation therein, and would justify an inference of the guilt of the accused independently of the testimony of the accomplice.’ (Punctuation and citations omitted.) *Edwards v. State,*200 Ga. App. 580, 584 (4) (408 SE2d 802) (1991).” *Tucker v. State,*205 Ga. App. 683, 684 (423 SE2d 422). In the case sub judice, there was no evidence, however slight, which could be viewed as corroborating the accomplice’s identification of defendant as his cohort in crime. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for directed verdict of acquittal. *Hanson v. State,*193 Ga. App. 246, 247 (2b) (387 SE2d 441); *Claybrooks v. State,*189 Ga. App. 431 (375 SE2d 880); *McCauley v. State,*177 Ga. App. 426 (339 SE2d 399).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Johnson and Blackburn, JJ., concur.*
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of Valley Financial Corporation,
certifies that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code and is subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).

Dated: August 12, 2008



| |  |                         |  |  |  | 
| |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | 
| |  | /s/ Ellis L. Gutshall   |  |  |  | 
| |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |
A93A0381.

#### MITCHELL v. THE STATE.

(430 SE2d 852)

Johnson, Judge.

Bobby Lewis Mitchell appeals from his conviction of forgery, raising insufficiency of the evidence to support the guilty verdict as his sole enumeration of error.

At trial, Weyman T. Gresham testified that an unidentified man and woman appeared at his house asking for help with their car which had run out of gas. Since it was cold outside, Gresham gave permission to the woman to sit in his car while a gas can was located and gas put into their car. Several hours after the couple had left, Gresham noticed that his checkbook, which he kept in the sun visor of his car, was missing. He was not able to identify Mitchell as the man needing gas on that day.

A second witness identified Mitchell as the holder of a check bearing a signature purporting to be Gresham’s. The check was *474presented as payment for merchandise at a store at which the witness was a manager. She testified that the payee of the check was “Armond Hamler” and that the bearer told her that he did not have a driver’s license or any other photographic identification, but did produce a Calloway Gardens employee identification card with that name. He also volunteered that the check was payment for yard work he had done for Gresham. The bank refused to honor the check, as Gresham had stopped payment on the account. Gresham was recalled to the stand and denied knowing anyone by the name Armond Hamler.

Decided April 13, 1993.

*Joseph W. Jones, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Peter J. Skandalakis, District Attorney, Mark A. Gomez, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

“The jury determines the credibility of the witnesses and weight to be given their testimony. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find the evidence and all reasonable deductions are such as to enable a rational trier of fact to find the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, according to the standard of *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560).” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) *Frost v. State,*204 Ga. App. 581, 582 (420 SE2d 81) (1992).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Blackburn, J., and Senior Appellate Judge John W. Sognier concur.*