alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.7



|     |  |  |                         |                         
|---- |  |  | ----------------------- | ------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |                         | Corporate Trust Services
|     |  |  | MAC R1204-010          
|     |  |  | 9062 Old Annapolis Road
|     |  |  | Columbia, MD 21045     
|     |  | 
|     |  |  |                         | Tel: 410 884 2000       
|     |  |  |                         | Fax: 410 715 2380       

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

390 Greenwich Street, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10013

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator for the Selig Portfolio Loan Combination (in such
capacities, Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the reporting period):



| | (a) | A review of Wells Fargos activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the Servicing Agreement(s)) has been made
under my supervision; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule
B.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 25, 2015

\s\ Brian Smith

Brian Smith

Vice President



---

To: Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

Schedule A

List of
Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2014, by and among GS MORTGAGE SECURITIES
CORPORATION II, Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, Operating Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Certificate Administrator
and DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, Trustee relating to the Series GSMS 2014-GC22 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates relating to the Selig Portfolio Loan Combination, a Pari passu portion of which is included in the Series CGCMT
2014-GC23 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.



---

To: Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

Schedule B

Material
Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

Not Applicable
II 

Calendar No. 88 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 863 

[Report No. 115–70] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2017 

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

Resources 

MAY 16, 2017 

Reported by Ms. MURKOWSKI, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To facilitate the addition of park administration at the 

Coltsville National Historical Park, 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. AMENDMENT TO COLTSVILLE NATIONAL HIS4 TORICAL PARK DONATION SITE. 

5 Section 3032(b)(2)(B) of Public Law 113–291 (16 

6 U.S.C. 410qqq) is amended by striking ‘‘East Armory’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘Colt Armory Complex’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 88 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 863 

[Report No. 115–70] 

AN ACT 

To facilitate the addition of park administration at 

other purposes. the Coltsville National Historical Park, and for 

MAY 16, 2017 

Reported without amendment 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
584 A.2d 245

#### RONALD CHERNOW v. ANGELO REYES, ET AL.

June 11, 1990.

Cross-petition for certification denied. (See 239 *N.J.Super.*201, 570 *A.2d*1282)
EXHIBIT
      32.1





HERITAGE
      OAKS BANCORP




Quarterly
      report on Form 10Q


for
      the
      quarter ended June 30, 2008





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The
      undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Oaks Bancorp (the
      “Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, that to my
      knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10Q for the quarter ended June
      30,
      2007, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
      “Quarterly Report”), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies
      with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange
      Act;
      and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the
      Company.





Dated:
                August 5, 2008
            /s/
                Lawrence P. WardLawrence
                P. Ward,President
                and Chief Executive 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 Heritage Oaks Bancorp, and will be retained
      by Heritage Oaks Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
Order entered November ,2012



### In The

No. 05-12-00647-CR STACY EUGENE ERVIN,Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401-80634-12



### ORDER The Court REINSTATES the appeal. On October 22, 2012, ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent; (3) counsel explained he was not getting notices because the Court had the wrong mailing address and e-mail address for him; and (4) appellant’s 

### brief can be filed by December 12, 2012. We DIRECT the Clerk to show the mailing address for appeHant’s counsel as 7004 Bishop Road, Number 3423, Piano, Texas 75024 and his e-mail address as CarltonHughes@aol.com. We ORDER appellant to file his brief by DECEMBER 12, 2012.We DIRECT the Clerk to send cop~es of this order, by electromc transrmss~on, to

counsel for all parties.

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

### JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0414 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ANDREW JAMES McCURDY,

Defendant and Appellant.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 11 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 1 2023

09/01/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0414
584 A.2d 199

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT JOHNSON.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H.
Barghaus, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Company.






/s/
      Robert H. BarghausRobert
      H. BarghausVice
      President and Chief Financial OfficerDecember
      7, 2009






This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the
knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
No. 99-40801 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40801 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WESLEY ERON WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:98-CR-141-1

-------------------- February 17, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Wesley Eron White appeals the sentence imposed by the district court upon White’s guilty-plea conviction of mailing nonmailable material in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1461. White argues that the district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 to enhance his sentence on account of obstruction of justice. A district court’s finding that a defendant has obstructed justice under § 3C1.1 is a factual finding reviewed for clear

error. United States v. Storm , 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir. 1994). Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in enhancing White’s sentence eitherNo. 99-40801 -2- because White provided a materially false statement to postal investigators or because White provided materially false information to the probation officer conducting the presentence investigation. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
10.1





December
13, 2021


NioCorp Developments
Ltd.


7000
South Yosemite Street, Suite115

Centennial, CO 80112


Attention:
Neal Shah, CFO


Dear
Sirs/Mesdames:


		Re:	8th
                                            Amending Agreement -

                                            Credit Facility Agreement between NioCorp Developments Ltd. and Mark Smith



Pursuant
to a credit facility agreement between NioCorp Developments Ltd. (the "Borrower") and Mark Smith (the "Lender") dated
January 16, 2017 and as amended March 20, 2017, February 26, 2018, May 14, 2019, January 10, 2020, April 2, 2020, June 10, 2020, and
December 14, 2020 (the "Credit Facility Agreement"), the Lender advanced a loan to the Borrower on the terms and conditions
set out therein.


The
Borrower and the Lender wish to amend the Credit Facility Agreement in the manner set forth herein.


INTERPRETATION


All
words and expressions defined in the Credit Facility Agreement have the same meaning when used herein. Reference to the Credit Facility
Agreement includes amendments thereto from time to time, including the amendments made by this amending agreement. All references herein
to sections of or schedules to an agreement other than this amending agreement are to sections of and schedules to the Credit Facility
Agreement, unless otherwise expressly stated. Clause headings are for reference only.


EFFECTIVE
DATE


The
provisions of the Credit Facility Agreement are amended as set out in this amending agreement effective as of the date of acceptance
by Borrower below.


AMENDMENTS


		1.	Section
                                            1.1(k) of the Credit Facility Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with
                                            the following new Section 1.1(k):



		(k)	“Term”
                                            means a period commencing on the Effective Date and expiring June 30, 2022.





    	 	  	 



     


    

-
2 - 



MISCELLANEOUS


With
the exception of the foregoing amendments, the Credit Facility Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unamended.


This
amending agreement may be executed by the parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered (including
by facsimile transmission or as a pdf attachment to an e-mail) shall constitute an original, but all such counterparts when taken together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.


Please
indicate your acceptance of this amending agreement by signing and returning the enclosed duplicate copy of this letter.


 


Yours
truly,



MARK A. SMITH


	 	 
	 	 
	/s/ Mark A. Smith	 
	 	 


 




Accepted
by Borrower as of the 13th day of December, 2021.


NIOCORP
dEVELOPMENTS lTD.


	 	 
	 	 
	By:  	/s/  Neal S. Shah	 
	 	Name:   	Neal S. Shah	 
	 	Title:	
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 11
                               HMN Financial, Inc.
                    Computation of Earnings Per Common Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                               Three months               Six Months
                              ended June 30,             ended June 30,
                            2000         1999           2000        1999
                        ------------------------   -------------------------
<S>                    <C>         <C>            <C>          <C>
Weighted average number
  of common shares
  outstanding used in
  basic earnings per
  common share
  calculation            3,881,190    4,422,471       3,939,614   4,465,679

Net dilutive effect of:
 Options                   114,259      167,858         114,612     177,041
 Restricted stock awards     1,881       20,019           2,584      23,267

Weighted average number
 of shares outstanding
 adjusted for effect of
 dilutive securities     3,997,330    4,610,348       4,056,810   4,665,987

Income available to
 common shareholders  $  1,880,139    1,716,347       3,409,853   3,318,347
Basic earnings per
 common share         $       0.48         0.39            0.87        0.74
Diluted earnings
 per common share     $       0.47         0.37            0.84        0.71

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. DEVON RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 430 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 25th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

                In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endingOctober 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Barghaus, Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

                (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except for the mattersset forth in Part II — Item 5 of this Quarterly Report; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert H. Barghaus                     |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert H. Barghaus                         |   |
|   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | December 10, 2004                          |   |

 

 

Thiscertification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject tothe knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

 

----
584 A.2d 235

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STEVEN P. LOEHR.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 356

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. IRA B. VINETT.

July 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 341

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMAL WORSLEY.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
ex10_8.htm


    
      

    

    
      Exhibit
10.8

      


      December
11, 2008

      


      


      FORM OF
WAIVER

      


      


      United
States Department of the Treasury

      1500
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

      Washington,
D.C.  20220

      


      Community
West Bancshares

      445 Pine
Avenue

      Goleta,
California 93117

      


      Ladies
and Gentlemen:

      


      In
consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s
participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital
Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States
or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required
to comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as
published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008.

      


      I
acknowledge that this regulation may require modification of the compensation,
bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements
(including so-called "golden parachute" agreements) that I have with my employer
or in which I participate as they relate to the period the United States holds
any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital
Purchase Program.

      


      This
waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any
state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation,
including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I
would otherwise receive, any challenge to the process by which this regulation
was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these
regulations on my employment relationship.

      


      


      
        
          	 
      	
                  /s/ Richard M. Favor

                	 
      
	 
      	
                  Richard
      M. Favor

                	 
      
	 
      	
                  Executive
      Vice President and Chief Credit Officer

                	 
      


        

      

      


       

      UST Sequence Number:
82

       

      Exhibit
10.8

       

      1
585 A.2d 378

#### ANSELMO LARQUIN v. JORGE DELGADO, M.D.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### C.M., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-2.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Dec. 17, 2010.

*541James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Christopher S. Quarles, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

GRIFFIN, J.

C.M., a child, appeals his adjudication of delinquency for possession of twenty grams or less of cannabis. He argues that the trial court erred by denying his oral motion to suppress the cannabis that was the product of an illegal search and seizure. He also argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of dismissal where the evidence did not establish his constructive possession or his knowledge of the contraband. We conclude there was sufficient record evidence to support the conviction, and we find no reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to entertain the suppression motion because it was untimely.

When the State attempted to admit cannabis found in proximity to C.M. into evidence, defense counsel objected, asserting “that the search was patently illegal” and that there were “chain of custody issues.” The State objected that C.M. had not filed a motion to suppress. The State relied on Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.085, which requires the filing of a suppression motion prior to the date of the adjudicatory hearing. The trial court refused to consider C.M.’s oral motion to suppress the cannabis because no written motion to suppress had been filed.

A trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress as untimely is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. *See B.M. v. State,*915 So.2d 649, 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Because C.M. had not filed a motion to suppress prior to the date of the adjudicatory hearing, and this was not a case where C.M. lacked the opportunity to make a motion to suppress prior to the date of the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

C.M. contends on appeal that the failure to timely file the motion was due to “confusion concerning the appointment of the *542public defender,” and his mother’s failure to appear to complete the necessary paperwork for the appointment of counsel until the morning of the hearing. It was conceded by C.M. that he had previously met with defense counsel, but he asserts “the grounds for the motion did not become obvious until Officer Bishop testified.” The State objects that the exception to the filing deadline was not argued below. Moreover, we note that at the beginning of the adjudicatory hearing, the trial judge voiced his concern that it had taken so long for the appointment of counsel paperwork to be completed. He confirmed with defense counsel and C.M. that they had met prior to the day of the hearing and that they were ready for trial.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7293 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7293

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 770 Ayrault Road in Fairport, New York, as the ``Louise and Bob 
                        Slaughter Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LOUISE AND BOB SLAUGHTER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 770 Ayrault Road in Fairport, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Louise and Bob Slaughter Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Louise and 
Bob Slaughter Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 21, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 7293

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 770 Ayrault Road in Fairport, New York, as the ``Louise and Bob 
                        Slaughter Post Office''.
```