alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| | US
Bank(Logo)                                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                               
| | Global
Corporate Trust
190 S. LaSalle Street, 7th FloorMK-IL-SL7CChicago, IL 60603

usbank.com



Annual Statement of ComplianceGS Mortgage Securities Trust 2013-GC13



VIA EMAIL



To Addresses on Exhibit A:



Re:       GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2013-GC13, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-GC13 (the “Trust”), issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2013 (the “Agreement”), by and among GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, as depositor, U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee and certificate administrator, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as operating advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer, and LNR Partners, LLC, as special servicer.



I, Kimberly O. Jacobs, a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator, hereby certify that:



(1) A review of the activities of the Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of the performance of the Certificate Administrator under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and



(2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certificate Administrator has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such Reporting Period.



Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.





Date:
February 23, 2020

|                                                             |                       
|------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------
|U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator
|                                                             |                       
|By:                                                          | /s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs
|                                                             | Kimberly O. Jacobs    
|                                                             | Senior Vice President 





|Page 1 of 2 | GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2013-GC13
|----------- | --------------------------------------
|            | Annual Statement of Compliance        









| | US
Bank(Logo)
| | -------------



Exhibit A



GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II200 West StreetNew York, New York 10282-2198Attention: Leah Nivisonleah.nivison@gs.com



Wells Fargo Bank, National Association9062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, Maryland 21045Attention: CMBS – GS 2013-GC13cts.sec.notifications@wellsfargo.com





|Page 2 of 2 | GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2013-GC13
|----------- | --------------------------------------
|            | Annual Statement of Compliance
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6818

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEVON RAYMUS STURDIVANT,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00194-RJC-1)

Submitted: August 24, 201 Decided: August 29, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Devon Raymus Sturdivant, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Gretchen C. F. Shappert, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Devon Raymus Sturdivant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

United States v. Sturdivant, No. 3:06-cr-00194-RJC-1 (W.D.N.C. June 2, 2017). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
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 Digerati Technologies,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2012 (the “Report”), I, Antonio Estrada,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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), as applicable, 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.



|Date: December 24, 2012 | /s/ Antonio Estrada                                          
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                        | Antonio Estrada                                              
|                        | Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal 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 from within the
electronic version of this written statement 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.
#### Patrick Waldo, Appellant, v P. W. Tully’s Woodstock Stud, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[610 NYS2d 891]

Casey, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered January 20, 1993 in Sullivan County, which granted defendants’ motion to amend their answer.

Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion to amend the answer to plead the Statute of Limitations. In the absence of any claim of surprise or prejudice by plaintiff, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion *(see, Fahey v County of Ontario,*44 NY2d 934; *Kramer & Sons v Facilities Dev. Corp.,*135 AD2d 942; *Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Sheldon,*124 AD2d 428).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

I, Leah Nivison, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reportson Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the GS Mortgage Securities Trust2013-GC13 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicingand other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the ExchangeAct periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicershave fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteriafor asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange ActRules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably reliedon information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator and Custodian, TriMontReal Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant,and National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant.

 

Dated: March 26, 2019

 

/s/ Leah Nivison

 

Chief Executive Officer

(senior officer in charge of securitizationof the depositor)
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13b – 14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT AND 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 Strayer Education, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Robert S. Silberman, Chairman 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:

|  |           |                                                                                                                       |
|--|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (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/    Robert S. Silberman |  |  |   |
| Robert S. Silberman                            |  |  |   |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer           |  |  |   |

July 27, 2007

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF THIS QUARTERLY REPORT
ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,539
<ALLOWANCES>                                       412
<INVENTORY>                                      2,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,762
<PP&E>                                           8,320
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,364
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,063
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,028
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,022
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,063
<SALES>                                          6,657
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,599
<CGS>                                            2,967
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,547
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,701
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    409
<INCOME-TAX>                                       114
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                295
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       295
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

      CERTIFICATION OF CORPORATE CONTROLLER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form
10-QSB  for the period ending January 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada, Corporate Controller
and  Principal  Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C,
ss.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,

1)   the  Report 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  result  of  operations  of  the  Company.

By /s/ Antonio Estrada
Antonio Estrada
Corporate Controller and
Principal Financial Officer
March 15, 2005


<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Priscilla CORDOVA, Appellant.

No. 06-3315.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 5, 2008.

Filed: Feb. 8, 2008.

Kimberly C. Bunjer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.

David M. O’Neill, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.

Priscilla Cordova, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Priscilla Cordova challenges the 30-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after revoking her supervised release. For reversal, Cordova argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the Chapter 7 sentencing recommendations, and by giving too much weight to her original sentence. We affirm.

We conclude that Cordova’s sentence, which is within the statutory maximum, is not unreasonable, and that the district

court did not abuse its discretion. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (authorizing up to 3 years imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release where original offense is Class B felony); *United States v. Mathis,*451 F.3d 939, 941 (8th Cir.2006) (review for reasonableness is akin to review for abuse of discretion); *United States v. Tyson,*413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (review of revocation sentences is for unreasonableness); *United States v. Haack,*403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.2005) (listing circumstances in which abuse of discretion may occur).

Specifically, the updated presentence report with the advisory Guidelines range was before the court; the same district judge presided over Cordova’s original and revocation sentencing hearings; the court was aware of Cordova’s history and characteristics, including her pattern of relapsing on drugs when not supervised; and the court properly considered Cordova’s original lenient sentence. *See United States v. Larison,*432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir.2006) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release); *United States v. Cotton,*399 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir.2005) (court properly considered that defendant received substantially reduced original sentence in imposing revocation sentence in excess of suggested Guidelines range); *United States v. Franklin,*397 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir.2005) (familiarity with defendant’s history and characteristics is implied when same judge presided over original sentencing hearing and revocation hearing; district court’s awareness of defendant’s repeated violations of release *738condition supported inference that court was aware of relevant § 3553(a) factors).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge. United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
a7310797c.htm


 



EXHIBIT 10.1






 


AMENDMENT TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT dated as of the 1st day of January, 2012, to the AMENDED AND RESTATED MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT made as of the 29th day of April, 2011, among CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“CMF”), ABINGDON FUTURES FUND L.P., a New York limited partnership (the “Partnership”) and WINTON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED, a United Kingdom company (the “Advisor”).


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, CMF, the Partnership and the Advisor wish to amend the Amended and Restated Management Agreement dated as of April 29, 2011, to increase the amount of leverage used to manage the Partnership’s assets.


 


NOW, therefore, the parties agree as follows:


 


1. The first sentence of Paragraph 1(c) shall be deleted and replaced by the following:


 


The allocation of the Partnership’s assets to the Advisor will be made to the Program as described in the Disclosure Document, provided that CMF and the Partnership agree that the amount of leverage applied to the assets of the Partnership allocated to the Advisor by CMF shall be up to (but not in excess of) 1.5 times the assets of the Partnership allocated to the Advisor by CMF (the “Trading Level”), unless otherwise agreed by the parties hereto in writing.  The Advisor shall trade the Partnership’s assets on the basis of the Trading Level.


 


2. In all other respects the Management Agreement remains unchanged and of full force and effect.


 


THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK




  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed for and on behalf of the undersigned as of the day and year first above written.


 


CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC












By  /s/  Walter Davis                                               


Walter Davis


President







ABINGDON FUTURES FUND L.P.







By:  Ceres Managed Futures LLC


(General Partner)












By  /s/ Walter Davis                                             


Walter Davis


President












WINTON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED












By  /s/  Rajeev Patel                                             


Rajeev Patel


Director, Winton Capital Management Limited







 


 



-2-
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARTHA BAÑUELOS CANALES,

Appellant,

v.

BENITO MARTINEZ,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 22

- 00098

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law #4

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2022

- CCV00232)

O R D E R

The Court has granted Appellant ’ s correspondence filed on September 2, 2022 , which has

been construed as a motion for rehearing

. It is therefore ordered that the opinion and judgment

dated August 30, 2022 are hereby withd rawn.

Further, the reporter’s record is due thirty (30) days from the date of this order. If there is

no reporter’s record the Appellant’s brief is due thirty (30) days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 20 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

, 202 2

.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
#### Piero A. BUGONI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nora GREER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-17338.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Piero A. Bugoni, Boca Raton, FL, pro se.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Piero A. Bugoni, a former Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations against public defenders appointed to represent him and mental health professionals appointed to diagnose and treat him in criminal actions brought against him in state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. *See Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp.,*358 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir.2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record even if the district court did not rely on that basis. *See United States v. State of Wash.,*969 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court did not err when it dismissed Bugoni’s action. *See Wong v. Bell,*642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir.1981) (district court has authority under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss sua sponte for failure to state a claim). The public defenders did not act under color of state law when they represented Bugoni, *see Miranda v. Clark County, Nev.,*319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (public defender representing client in lawyer’s traditional adversarial role is not a state actor), and Bugoni has not alleged facts to support a conclusion that the mental health professionals’ decisions were a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice or standards, *see Youngberg v. Romeo,*457 U.S. 307, 323, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) (decisions of mental health care professionals are “presumptively valid”); *see also Houghton v. South,*965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir.1992) (plaintiff must prove that the mental health professional’s decision reflected a conscious indifference amounting to gross negligence).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bugoni’s motion for reconsideration because Bugoni failed to *779demonstrate grounds warranting relief from the order dismissing his claims against the public defenders. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.