alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.4



LOGO

2015 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)

Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) dated as of August 1, 2014 by and among Morgan Stanley
Capital I, Inc. as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Citibank, N.A. as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar and Authenticating Agent, Wells
Fargo Bank, National Association as Custodian and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC as Trust Advisor, relating to Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2014-C17, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C17 (MSBAM
2014-C17)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the Special Servicer) herein
certifies to the following:



| | 1. | All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period) in accordance with the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and
if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|              |  |                                |  |  |  |                    
|------------- |  | ------------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------
|Certified by: |  | /s/ Adam Singer                |  |  |  | Date: March 1, 2016
|              |  | Adam Singer, Managing Director |  |  |  |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2216

BRENDA FAYE WRAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GERALD ROBERT HARRISON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-97-353-3, BK-96-31492-T)

Submitted: October 30, 1998 Decided: December 15, 1998

Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Neil Kuchinsky, KUCHINSKY & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Colonial Heights,

Virginia, for Appellant. Gerald Robert Harrison, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* In light of this disposition, we deny Wray’s motion for

publication of this opinion.

2

PER CURIAM:

Brenda Faye Wray appeals the district court’s order affirming

the bankruptcy court’s order which (1) confirmed the debtor’s proposed Chapter 13 plan and (2) imposed sanctions against her

attorney. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion

discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Wray v. Harrison, No. CA-97-353-3

(E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.*

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62569-62570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25212]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Connected Media Experience, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 17, 2010, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Connected Media Experience, 
Inc. (``CMX'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Puretracks, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Gracenote, 
Emeryville, CA; and Thwapr, Inc., New York, NY, have been added as 
parties to this venture.

[[Page 62570]]

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and CMX intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On March 12, 2010, CMX filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 
16, 2010 (75 FR 20003).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 28, 
2010. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on July 14, 2010 (75 FR 40851).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-25212 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
```
585 A.2d 391

#### JAMES WOLFF AND CARL WOLFF, JR. v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 863 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 863

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2017

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To facilitate the addition of park administration at the Coltsville 
           National Historical Park, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO COLTSVILLE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK DONATION 
              SITE.

    Section 3032(b)(2)(B) of Public Law 113-291 (16 U.S.C. 410qqq) is 
amended by striking ``East Armory'' and inserting ``Colt Armory 
Complex''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 27, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
584 A.2d 247

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN D. HARRIS.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 15



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.  10549

RE: PDS Financial Corporation
    Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-85966)


We are aware that our report dated November 10, 1997, on our review of interim
financial information of PDS Financial Corporation for the period ended
September 30, 1997, and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 1997, is incorporated by reference in
this registration statement.  Pursuant to Rule 436 (c) under the Securities Act
of 1933, this report should not be considered a part of the registration
statement prepared or certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of
that Act.



Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
November 10, 1997


                                          19
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 30, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o
. 0 8

- 1 6 1 3 7 N o n - A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o
. 0 5

- 0 0 4 7 7

- C R

- C C

- 1
U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s
J A V I E R A L V A R E Z

- L O P E Z , a
. k

. a
. G o t t i , a
. k

. a
. C a r l o s , a
. k

. a
. T i o , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f G e o r g i a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 )
B e f o r e B L A C K , B A R K E T T a n d C O X , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M :E

. V a u g h n D u n n i g a n , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r J a v i e r A l v a r e z - L o p e z , h a s f i l e d

a m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w o n a p p e a l s u p p o r t e d b y a b r i e f p r e p a r e d p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s

v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r
i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e

r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e

e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s
G R A N T E D , a n d A l v a r e z - L o p e z ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e s a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
Order entered December 8, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01338-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.H. AND J.H., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-30004-2015

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s December 4, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief by DECEMBER 18, 2015. We caution appellant that no 

further extension will be granted in this accelerated appeal absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
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 17, 2010
    
    /s/ David T. StonerDate
    
    David T. StonerChief Executive Officer
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert B. Goergen,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Blyth, Inc., certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blyth, Inc.;

 

2.              Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.              Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.              Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.              Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: June 9, 2004               |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                  |
|                                  |
| /s/ Robert B. Goergen                 |   |
| Robert B. Goergen                     |
| Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25499]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form 144; OMB Control No. 3235-0101; SEC File No. 270-112.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management Budget 
for extension and approval.
    Form 144 (17 CFR 239.144) is used to report the sale of securities 
during any three-month period that exceeds 5,000 shares or other units 
or has an aggregate sales price that does not exceed $50,000. Under 
Sections 2(11), 4(1), 4(2), 4(4) and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 
1933 (15 U.S.C. 77b, 77d(1)(2)(4) and 77s(a)) and Rule 144 (17 CFR 
230.144) there under, the Commission is authorize to solicit the 
information required to be supplied by Form 144. Form 144 takes 
approximately 1 burden hour per response and is filed by 23,361 
respondents for a total of 23,361 total burden hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information 
on respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Jeffrey Heslop, Acting 
Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-
Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312, or send an 
e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#baeae8fbe5f7dbd3d6d8d5c2fac9dfd994ddd5cc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="124240534d5f737b7e707d6a526177713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 4, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25499 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* 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. 98-41504 

Conference Calendar

 

RICKY G. MORENO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TAMMY BUNTON; MITCHELL BRADSHAW; JOHN DOE,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-98-CV-466

--------------------

August 24, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ricky G. Moreno, Texas prisoner #501109, appeals from the

dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. Moreno argues

that the district court erred by making improper factual findings

when dismissing his complaint as frivolous; that the district

court erred by dismissing the complaint without giving him an

opportunity to amend it or to conduct discovery; that prison

officials violated the Due Process Clause at his disciplinary

hearing by not allowing him to call witnesses; that counsel

substitute violated the Due Process Clause by failing to perform 
No. 98-41504 

-2-

adequately at his disciplinary hearing; that the “John Doe”

defendant violated the Due Process Clause by failing to correct

the violations at Moreno’s disciplinary hearing; that there was

no evidence to support the disciplinary charge against him; that

the hearing officer violated prison rules by the way he conducted

the disciplinary hearing; and that prison officials violated the

Due Process Clause and prison rules by disciplining him for

refusing to accept a housing assignment with a black prisoner.

First, the punishment Moreno received in his disciplinary

hearing, 45 days’ recreation and commissary restriction, did not

impose atypical and significant hardship on Moreno in relation to

the ordinary incidents of prison life. See Sandin v. Conner, 515

U.S. 472, 484 (1995)(internal citations omitted). Second, the

failure of prison administrators to follow prison rules and

regulations does not, without more, give rise to a constitutional

violation. Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Moreno has failed to demonstrate plain error regarding his

contentions that prison officials violated prison rules,

contentions that he raises for the first time on appeal.

Moreno’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The

dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Moreno that once he

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis

in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).
No. 98-41504 

-3-

APPEAL DISMISSED; WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS IN CITADEL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          68,680
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,110)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               139,021
<PP&E>                                          74,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,941)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 615,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,595
<BONDS>                                        211,299
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          124,900
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            31
<OTHER-SE>                                     232,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   615,207
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,077
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,124
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,344
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,482
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,412)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (903)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,509)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,509)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.48)


</TABLE>
584 A.2d 237

#### MARGARET KONTAKIS v. NICHOLAS H. KONTAKIS.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.