alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (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, 2013, by andamong WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS,LLC, as Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as TaxAdministrator and as Custodian, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee,with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WFRBS Series2013-C14 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 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 my supervision,and

 

2.  To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all ofits obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersignedhas executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

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

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 41 

Expressing the sense of Congress on the Peshmerga of the Kurdistan Region 

of Iraq. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2016 

Mrs. ERNST (for herself and Mrs. BOXER) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress on the Peshmerga of the 

Kurdistan Region of Iraq. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that— 

3 (1) the Peshmerga of the Kurdistan Region of 

4 Iraq have been one of the most effective fighting 

5 forces in the military campaign against the Islamic 

6 State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS); 

7 (2) the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham poses 

8 an acute threat to the Iraqi people and territorial in9 tegrity of Iraq, including the Kurdistan Region of 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

•SCON 41 IS 

1 Iraq, and the security and stability of the Middle 

2 East; 

3 (3) the severe budget shortfalls faced by both 

4 the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional 

5 Government are hindering the stability of Iraq and 

6 have the potential to undermine long-term efforts to 

7 bring about the sustainable defeat of the Islamic 

8 State of Iraq and al-Sham; 

9 (4) the $415,000,000 pledged by the United 

10 States Government to the Kurdish Peshmerga in 

11 April of 2016, in coordination with the Government 

12 of Iraq, in addition to the $65,000,000 already pro13 vided from the Iraq Train and Equip Fund, should 

14 remain a priority for the United States as part of 

15 the continued support for Iraqi Security Forces, in16 cluding the Peshmerga, in the fight against the Is17 lamic State of Iraq and al-Sham; 

18 (5) the Peshmerga should receive all weapons 

19 and equipment that the United States, in coordina20 tion with the Government of Iraq, agrees to provide 

21 in an expeditious and in a timely manner; 

22 (6) the Peshmerga require equipment that will 

23 allow them to defend themselves and their coalition 

24 advisers against the increased use of vehicle-borne 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

3 

•SCON 41 IS 

1 improvised explosive devices by the Islamic State of 

2 Iraq and al-Sham; 

3 (7) the Peshmerga are vital partners in the 

4 fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham; 

5 and 

6 (8) in coordination with the Government of 

7 Iraq, the United States will endeavor to increase as8 sistance to Iraqi Kurdish Forces to enhance their 

9 combat medicine and logistical capabilities, to defend 

10 internally displaced persons and refugees, and to de11 fend the Peshmerga and their coalition advisers. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
#### Commonwealth vs. Stanley Webb.

December 7, 2007.

*Lottery.*

*Steven E. Gagne,*Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

*Dana Alan Curhan (Brad P. Bennion*with him) for the defendant.

For the reasons stated by the Appeals Court, the defendant’s convictions must be reversed and the findings set aside. *Commonwealth*v. *Webb,*68 Mass. App. Ct. 167 (2007). Judgments shall enter for the defendant.

*So ordered.*
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 13 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 13

Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of a Sergeant at 
                   Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 6, 2015

Mr. McConnell submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of a Sergeant at 
                   Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives be notified of the 
election of the Honorable Frank J. Larkin as Sergeant at Arms and 
Doorkeeper of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 (the "Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur
L. Smith, 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,



| | 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                                         and results of operations of the Company.



|By | /s/
    Arthur L. Smith     | 
|-- | --------------------------- | 
|   | Arthur
    L. Smith         | 
|   | President
    and           | 
|   | Chief
    Executive Officer | 
|   | January
    20, 2015        |
----

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      L. Paul Latham                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| L.      Paul Latham                                          |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                   |
| of      Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                       |
| Managing      General Partner of                             |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-C, L.P. |
|                                                         |
| November      16, 2009                                       |
|                                                         |
|                                                         |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs                                        |
| Mel      G. Riggs                                            |
| Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer of           |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc., the                          |
| Managing      General Partner of                             |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-C, L.P. |
|                                                         |
| November      16, 2009                                       |
#### Henry and another *v.*Gold Park Mining Co.*

*(Circuit Court, D. Colorado.*

March 28, 1883.)

Garnishment.

A judgment of one court is not attachable under process issued out of another court.

One John W. Bailey sued the plaintiff Henry in one of the courts of the state of Colorado, and, having caused a writ of attachment to issue, served process of garnishment upon the defendant, the Gold Park Mining Company. The garnishee answered, admitting that it is indebted to plaintiff Henry in the sum of $4,942.47 on a judgment against him in this court, in this cause, and thereupon moved 'this court to stay execution upon the judgment until the matter of its liability in the state court can be determined. This is the motion now to be considered.

*650*Wells, Smith & Macon,*for the motion.

*Samuel T. Rose*and *Chas. J. Hughes, contra.*

*

 From the Denver Law Journal.

McCrary, J.

The only question which I deem it necessary to consider is whether a debtor by judgment in a federal court can be subjected to garnishment at the suit of a creditor who proceeds against him in a state court. Whatever the rule may be with respect to the garnishment of a judgment debtor in the same court in which the judgment was rendered, I am of the opinion that it would lead to great inconvenience and to serious conflict of jurisdiction to hold that a judgment in one court may be attached by garnishment in another, especially where the two courts are of different jurisdiction, as in the case before us, and the decided weight of authority sustains this view. Drake, Attachm. § 625; *Young*v. *Young,*2 Hill, (S. C.) 426; *Burrill*v. *Letson,*2 Speers, 378; *Wallace*v. *McConnell,*13 Pet. 136; *Wood*v. *Lake,*13 Wis. 94; *Thomas*v. *Wooldridge, 2*Wood, 667, (opinion by Mr. Justice Bradley;) *Franklin*v. *Ward,*3 Mason, 136; Freeman, Ex’ns, § 166.

Upon these authorities, as well as upon what I conceive to be much better reason, I am constrained to hold that a judgment in this court cannot be attached in a proceeding in a state court, and this ruling is conclusive of the motion to stay execution, which, without considering the other questions raised, must be overruled. Ordered accordingly.
#### Reay, Ex’r, etc., *v.*Rau.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

March 14, 1883.)

Patents nor Inventions—Inerinuemiont—-Evidence on.

Where defendant was called by plaintiff in rebuttal oí his own testimony, and it was insisted that defendant, by one answer in regard to a date, established an infringement which had not been 1 he subject of previous testimony, and 1 hat this answer was to overthrow his uniform denial of the infringement, and of the infringing device having been made during the life of the patent, without the knowledge and permission of the patentee, *held,*that such testimony is not sufficient to make out a case of infringement.

*Arthur v. Briesen,*for plaintiff.

*Edioard Fitch,*for defendant.

Shipman, J.

This is a/bill in equity praying for an injunction and an account, and is founded upon the alleged infringement by the defendant of reissued letters patent No. 2,529, dated March 26, 1867, and of original letters patent No. 41,395, dated January 26, 1864; each of said patents being for improvements in envelope machines, and each having been issued to George H. Eeay, the plaintiff’s testator, as inventor The original of the reissued letters patent was issued August 25,1863. The bill was filed October 11,1880, after the expiration of No. 2,529, and shortly prior to the expiration of No. 41,395. The bill does not allege that the defendant has for sale, or was using or was intending to use or to sell, any infringing machines which were made during the term of the patent No. 2,529, in infringement of it. If such an allegation had been made, it would have been untrue. 'When the bill was filed, the defendant, who is a manufacturer of this class of iron work, had no patented machines on hand. When the patent expired he had one machine in stock, which he had made in accordance with the understanding, and the usual course of business between the patentee and himself, that he should keep machines in stock, so that orders might be promptly filled.

The facts of this case do not bring it within the decision of Judge Wheeler in *Diamond Rock Boring Co.*v. *Sheldon,*1 Fed. Rep. 870, hut aro within his decision in *Diamond Rock Boring Co.*v. *Rutland Marble Co.*2 Fed. Rep. 355. There are in this branch of the case no allegations upon which to base a prayer for an injunction against the defendant’s use or sale of machines. There is, therefore, no occasion to inquire whether the first-named decision is inconsistent with the subsequent opinion of the supreme court in *Root*v. *Ry. Co.*105 U. S. 189.

*750Infringement of patent No. 41,395 was not shown. In rebuttal of the defendant’s testimony, the plaintiff called the defendant, and now insists that he, by one answer in regard to a date, established an infringement which had not been the subject of previous testimony, and that this answer is to overthrow his uniform denial of his having made the infringing device during the life of the patent without the knowledge and permission of the patentee. 'Such testimony is not sufficient to make out a case of infringement.

The bill should be dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Section 1350 Certification -- Principal Executive Officer** 

 

**Citizens Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Citizens Financial Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Darrell R. Wells, President and Chief Executive 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, to the best of 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. 

 

 

| By:    | /s/ Darrell R. Wells                  |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Darrell R. Wells                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

Date: August 10, 2007

 

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 Citizens Financial Corporation and will be retained by CFC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 18

- 00178

- CV
James W. LANDESS , Appellant

v. Veronica Bosque Landess MCGLOHN , Appellees
From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CI19372 The Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 27, 2018
DISMISSED
On March 22, 2018, James W. Landess filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment signed February 5, 2018. The record was due June 5, 2018, 120 days after the judgment was signed

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 35.1( a), 26.1(a). The Bexar County District Clerk filed a notification stating the clerk’s record would not be filed because Landess had not pai d or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee to prepare the record and is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. On June 8, 2018, we ordered Landess to provide written proof to this court by June 18, 2018, that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements had been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) he is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. We cautioned that if04

- 18

- 00178

- CV

- 2

- Landess failed to respond within the time provided, t his appeal would be dismissed. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P . 37.3(b); 42.3(c). Landess has not filed a response and the clerk’s record has not been filed

. We therefore order this appeal dismissed.
PER CURIAM
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                       DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                   1998 AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK OPTION PLAN


         1. During June 1998, Daisytek International Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), adopted the 1998 Amended and Restated Stock Option
Plan (the "Plan"). The Company desires to amend the Plan as set forth herein:

         2. Section 7.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to replace the last
sentence of such section with the following:

                  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee may, in its sole
                  discretion, permit the transfer of any Non-Qualified Option,
                  in whole or in part, and the exercise thereof by any
                  transferee thereof.

         3. The remaining terms and provisions of the Plan shall continue in
full force and effect.

         4. This First Amendment to the Plan was adopted by the Board of
Directors of the Company on August 2, 2001.
**Exhibit
        32**
 
  **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 OrthoLogic Corp. (the “Company”) on Form
        10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
        John
        M. Holliman, III, Executive Chairman and principal executive officer
        of the Company, and Les M. Taeger, 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 to the best of his knowledge:
  (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.
 Date:
        November 8, 2006
  /s/
                  John M. Holliman, IIIJohn
                  M. Holliman, IIIExecutive
                  Chairman and principal executive officer/s/
                  Les M. TaegerLes
                  M. TaegerChief
                  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 OrthoLogic Corp. and will be retained
        by
        OrthoLogic Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
        or its
        staff upon request.
Fiscal Year 2012 Long-Term Equity Grant award description



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 Fiscal Year 2012 Long-Term Equity Grant Award Description to Named Executive Officers 
 On
December 17, 2011 the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved the long-term incentive equity grants, with an effective grant date as of December 19, 2011, to those individuals set forth below in the amount and upon the
terms and conditions set forth below. 
 General Terms of Grant: 

 

	 	•	 	 Form of grant: A combination of stock option and performance share awards for executive officers. 



 

	 	•	 	 Term and vesting of stock options: The stock option grants vest equally over a 3 year period and have a 7 year term.



  

	 	•	 	 Settlement of performance shares: Performance shares that are earned, if any, will be settled in cash based on the results of our relative total
shareholder return compared to our peer group at the end of the 3 year performance period. If the company’s initial 3 year performance period is below target against our peer group, an additional 2 year performance period would apply. The
performance shares expire upon payout, if any, of the award, and in any case no later than October 31, 2016. 


  

	 	•	 	 Grant date: December 19, 2011. 


  

	 	•	 	 Exercise Price for Stock Options: $37.20. 


  

	 	•	 	 Number of stock options and performance shares:



 

									
	 	  	Stock
Option	 	  	Performance
Shares	 
	 Daniel C. Ustian, Chairman, President and CEO
	  	 	137,800	  	  	 	55,120	  
	 Andrew J. Cederoth, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	 	27,800	  	  	 	11,100	  
	 Deepak T. Kapur, President — Truck Group
	  	 	33,300	  	  	 	13,300	  
	 Greg Elliott, SVP Human Resources and Administration
	  	 	13,400	  	  	 	5,600	  
	 Steven K. Covey, SVP, General Counsel and Chief Ethics Officer
	  	 	20,000	  	  	 	8,000