alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY A. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATHAN NASH,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-2454 SI (pr)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS

Gary Williams filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he

alleged that defendant used excessive force on him while he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley

State Prison. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Williams failed to exhaust

administrative remedies before filing the action, and Williams opposed the motion. 

The motion must be denied based on an opinion issued after defendant filed his motion.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held in Talamantes v. Leyva, 575 F.3d 1021, 1023-24 (9th Cir.

2009), that the provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act that requires exhaustion of

administrative remedies, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), does not apply to former prisoners. Regardless

of whether the plaintiff is a prisoner at the time of the acts or omissions giving rise to the § 1983

claim occurred, if he is not a prisoner at the time he files the action, he need not comply with the

exhaustion requirement to proceed. See id. That is the situation here: Williams had been

released on parole and was not a "prisoner" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e at the time

he filed this action, even though he was a prisoner before the action was filed and became one

again months after the action was filed. Section 1997e(a) does not bar Williams' action because

Case 3:08-cv-02454-SI Document 30 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 he was not a prisoner at the time he filed this action. Defendant's motion to dismiss therefore

is DENIED. (Docket # 24.)

No later than February 26, 2010, the parties must file and serve case management

reports indicating what discovery remains to be done, the amount of time needed for discovery,

whether any further motions will be filed, when they will be ready for trial, and the expected

length of the trial. In his case management report, plaintiff also should state when he expects

to be released from custody. The statements need not be jointly prepared. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2010 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02454-SI Document 30 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(b)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 15, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Glenn M. Parker, M.D.Glenn M. Parker, M.D.Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) Date: May 15, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Timothy FairbanksTimothy FairbanksChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
§ 19.7-5 Limitations. ( a ) A spousal agreement may not provide for any payment from the Fund in excess of the amount otherwise authorized to be paid, or at a time not authorized by these regulations, or to a person other than a spouse or former spouse.
( b ) A spousal agreement must be filed with the Department, Attention PER/ER/RET, and accepted by that office as in conformance with the Act and these regulations prior to the times specified in §§ 19.7-2 and 19.7-3. That office will provide advice to the parties on the validity of any proposed agreement and on proper format.
( c ) A spousal agreement may apply only to payments from the Fund for periods after receipt of a valid agreement by the Department.
( d ) Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of §§ 19.6-9 and 19.6-10 apply to spousal agreements and payments made pursuant to spousal agreements to the same extent that they apply to court orders and court ordered payments.
Exhibit 35.1





Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.








This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 16, 2019 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2019-4 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.  The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.





The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer.  I further certify as follows:





1. I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, and its performance under the Agreement.





2. To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.








AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.





By:/s/ Connie CoffeyDated:March 3, 2023Connie CoffeyExecutive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
Power of Attorney


Know all by these presents, that the undersigned (the "Reporting Person")
hereby constitutes and appoints each of Melanie A. DeMorrow, Assistant Vice
President-Shareholder Relations; Richard M. Lavers, Secretary; Joseph P.
Tomczak, Executive Vice President & C.F.O.; Kathy Samovitz, Associate
Counsel; and Jessica L. Long, Assistant Secretary,  signing singly, as the
Reporting Person's true and lawful attorney-in-fact, to:

(1) execute for and on behalf of the Reporting Person, in the Reporting
Person's capacity as an officer or trustee of Coachmen Industries, Inc.
(the "Company"), Forms 3, 4, and 5 and such other similar forms as may be
required for filing in accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and the rules
thereunder;

(2) do and perform all acts for and on behalf of the Reporting Person
which may be necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such forms
and timely file such forms with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission and any stock exchange or similar authority or other federal
agency; and

(3) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the
foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit
to, and in the best interest of, or legally required by, the Reporting
Person.

The Reporting Person hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power and
authority to do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever requisite,
necessary, or proper to be done in the exercise of any of the rights and powers
herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the Reporting Person
might or could do if personally present, with full power of substitution or
revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact, or
such attorney-in-facts substitute or substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to
be done by the virtue of this Power of Attorney and the rights and powers
herein granted.  The Reporting Person acknowledges that the foregoing
attorneys-in fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the Reporting
Person, are not assuming, nor is the company assuming, any of the Reporting
Persons responsibilities to comply with any of the above specified laws or
regulations.

This Power of Attorney shall remain in full force and effect until the
Reporting Person is no longer required to file such forms with respect to the
Reporting Person's holdings of and transactions in securities issued by the
Company, unless earlier revoked by the Reporting Person in a signed writing
delivered to the Secretary of  the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Reporting Person has caused this Power of Attorney to
be executed as of this 10th day of June, 2004.



						s/William P. Johnson
#### Cindy G. Wattenberg, Respondent, v Gary Wattenberg, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 383]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered August 31,1999, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, declared that a Release and Indemnification Agreement entered into by the parties on March 18, 1985 was not vitiated by the Post-Nuptial Agreement entered into on November 2, 1995, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject defendant’s contention that the very general merger clause contained in the parties’ Post-Nuptial Agreement voided the Release and Indemnification Agreement previously entered into by the parties. The Post-Nuptial Agreement, which concerns the issue of distribution of the parties’ property and which was entered into for the purpose of modifying a previously entered into Ante-Nuptial Agreement, which also dealt solely with the issue of distribution of the parties’ property, and the Release and Indemnification Agreement at issue, which concerns the issue of income taxes and income tax liability, are separate contracts, dealing with different subject matters and supported by independent consideration. The Post-Nuptial Agreement does not address the Release and Indemnification Agreement and the parties continued to abide by the terms of the Release and Indemnification Agreement after the execution of the Post-Nuptial Agreement. As such, it was demonstrated that the intention of the parties was for the Release and Indemnification Agreement to survive the Post-Nuptial Agreement (see, *Gordon v Patchogue Surgical Co.,*222 AD2d 651). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
# United Stat es Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 J anuary 18 , 20 11 B efo re JO E L M . FL A U M , Cir cu i tJudg e K E N N E T H F. R IP P L E , Cir cu i tJudg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e
A N D R E W SU H , P et it ioner -App el lant, N o. 09
- 3946 v. G U Y P IE R C E , W ar d en , R espo nd ent-A pp ellee
. A pp ealf ro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Co ur tf o r the No r t he r n Di s t r i c to fI l l i no i s, E as te rn D ivis ion . N o. 1: 03- cv- 0701 4 R eb ec c a R . Pa llm ey er , Judge.
O R D E R The sl i p opi ni on i ssued in the abo ve- enti tl ed cause on J anuary 18 , 20 11, i s a m ended as f ol l ows: On p age 1, the capti on s houl d refl ect t h e p ro per party

desi gnati on f orGuy Pi er ce a s R espo nd ent-A pp ellee
.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Doris Quinones, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to vacate order dated January 12, 1959, dismissing appeal, to restore the appeal to the calendar, and for other relief. The District Attorney on behalf of respondent consents to the granting of .the motion. Motion granted. The appeal is placed on the calendar for the June 1960 Term, and will 'be deemed to have been submitted on the record and briefs in the codefendant’s appeal *(People*v. *Di Gicco,*10 A D 2d 734). Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

444 

KA 12-01165 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DOUGLAS MCCULLARS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Jeffrey R.

Merrill, A.J.), rendered November 30, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law §

140.20). We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to

appeal is invalid because “the minimal inquiry made by County Court

was insufficient to establish that the court engage[d] the defendant

in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to

appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” (People v Box, 96 AD3d

1570, 1571, lv denied 19 NY3d 1024 [internal quotation marks omitted];

see People v Hamilton, 49 AD3d 1163, 1164; People v Brown, 296 AD2d

860, 860, lv denied 98 NY2d 767). Indeed, on this record there is no

basis upon which to conclude that the court ensured “that the

defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct

from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty”

(People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). We nevertheless conclude that the

sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: May 2, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY SINN,

Petitioner,

 v.

B. CURRY, Warden, BOARD OF

PAROLE HEARINGS,

Respondents. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 08-1706 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

On March 28, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional

Training Facility, Soledad, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2005 decision by the California

Board of Prison Hearings (“Board”) to deny petitioner parole. Respondent has filed an

answer to the petition and petitioner has filed a traverse.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit addresses important issues relating to federal

review of parole decisions. See Hayward v Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th

Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). Consequently, the parties will be directed to file

supplemental briefs setting forth their respective views as to the effect, if any, of the

Hayward en banc decision on the Court’s determination of the instant petition.

Case 3:08-cv-01706-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/20/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than ten days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall send to

petitioner a copy of the Hayward en banc decision. 

2. No later than twenty days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall file

and serve on petitioner a supplemental brief addressing the impact of Hayward on the instant

action. 

3. No later than twenty days from the date respondent’s supplemental brief is

filed, petitioner shall file and serve on respondent either a supplemental brief addressing the

impact of Hayward on the instant action or a notice that he does not intend to file such a

brief.

4. The parties’ respective supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages in length.

5. The matter will be deemed submitted on the date petitioner’s supplemental brief is

due. No extensions of time will be granted to file the supplemental briefs absent a showing

of exceptional circumstances. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01706-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 260

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 260 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 260.0-7 Small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

For purposes of Commission rulemaking in accordance with the provisions of Chapter Six of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*), and unless otherwise defined for purposes of a particular rulemaking proceeding, the term “small business” or “small organization,” for purposes of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 shall mean an issuer whose total assets on the last day of its most recent fiscal year were $5 million or less that is engaged or proposing to engage in small business financing. An issuer is considered to be engaged or proposing to be engaged in small business financing under this section if it is conducting or proposing to conduct an offering of securities which does not exceed the dollar limitation prescribed by § 260.4a-2.

[47 FR 5223, Feb. 4, 1982, as amended at 51 FR 25362, July 14, 1986]
### §2949. Repealed. Pub. L. 93–644, §9(c)(6), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2314

Section, Pub. L. 88–452, title VI, §609, Aug. 20, 1964, 78 Stat. 532; Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §108(f), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 715; Pub. L. 91–177, title I, §109, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 830; Pub. L. 92–424, §§12(b), 21, Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 692, 696; Pub. L. 93–386, §2(b), Aug. 23, 1974, 88 Stat. 745, defined the terms "State", "financial assistance", "permanent resident of the United States", "Director", and "lower living standard budget".
THESTATE01ALASKAl.OVERNORBILL\VALKERDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservationOFFICEOFTHECOMMISSIONERP.O.Box111800410WilloughbyAvenue.Suite303Juneau.Alaska99811-1800Main:907-465-5066Fax:907-465-5070www.dec.alaska.govJanuary25,2016Mr.DennisMel.erranU.S.EP.\Region10RegionalAdministrator'sOffice,Rt\-1401200SixthAvenue,Suite900Seattle,Wt\98101Subject:SIPSubmittaloffccregulationsandcrossreferencecorrectionsin18\\C50DearMr.McLerran:Thisletterprovidesforyourapprovalamendmentsto18AAC50,AirQualityControlregulations,withaneffectivedateofSeptember26,2015.TheAlaskaDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation(DEC)issubmittingtheenclosedSIPrevisionforthefollowing:•Revisedpermitadministrationandcompliancefeesin18r\t\C50.400.•Correctedcrossreferencestofeeregulationsin18AAC50.230(c)(1)(I)and18.fu\C50.260(p).PleasenotethatasaresultofDECrepealingandreadopting18AAC50.400,subsectionspreviouslyapprovedaspartoftheSIPhavebeenreletteredasfollows:•Preious18,\AC50.400(e)isnow18AAC50.400(d);•Previous18AAC50.400(g)isnow18AAC50.400(e);•Previous18AAC50.400(h)isnow18AAC50.400(f);•Previous18AAC50.400(i)isnow18AAC50.400(g);•Previous18AAC50.400G)(19)isnowpartof18AAC50.400(h)butisnotexplicitlylisted;•Previous18AAC50.400G)(20)isnowincludedin18AAC50.400(g).ADECrequestsEPAapprovaloftheapplicablepartsofthesubmissionfoundin 18AAC50.230(c)(1)(1);18AAC50.260(p);18AAC50.400(d),(e)(f),(g),and(h).OJ·:CwillsubmitthefollowingdocumentsviathEPA'scSIPSsystem.Ifrequested,wecanprovideonepapercopyandoneelectronicversion ofthefollowingdocuments to KristinHallofyourstaff(notethattheelectronicversionwould beanexactduplicateofthepapercopy):1.Lt.Governor'scertifiedFilingCertificateforPermanentRegulations,includingSignedAdoptionOrderandMemorandumofFiledPermanentRegulations,signed onAugust27,2015,withaneffectivedateofregulationsofSeptember26,2015;2.NoticeofPublicCommentPeriod,signedMay21,2015;Mr.DennisMel.erran2January25,20'163.AffidavitofPublicationforthePublicNotice,signedMay26,2015;4.Affidavitof\gencyRecordofPublicComment,signed\ugust7,2015;5.AffidavitofCancellationofOralllearing,signedJuly20,2015;6.\ffidavitofNoticeofProposed\doptionofRegulationsandFurnishingofAdditional1 nformation,signedJuly20,2015;7.PublicReviewDraftof18,\r\C50regulationswhichshowsthechangesmadetotheregulations,withboldletteringasnewlanguageandbracketedlanguageasoldlanguage,datedMay21,2015;and8.r\copyofthetrackedregulationamendmentspreparedbytheDepartmentofLawfortransmittaltotheLt.Governorforcertificationandfiling,withRegister218,October2015,handwritten.DeniseKochisavailabletoyourstafftorespondtoquestionsortootherwiseassist.Shecanbereachedat(907)465-5109.Asalways,Iwouldbepleasedtodiscussanyofthiswithyou.LarryHartlgCommissionercc:Jan[Iastings,OfficeofAir,Waste,andToxics,EP\Region10KristinHall,OfficeofAir,Waste,andToxics,EP;\Region10,\liceEdwards,DeputyCommissioner,DECDeniseKoch,Director,Divisionof,\irQualityJohnKuterbach,ProgramManager,APPProgram,DEC
###### Editorial Note on Part 133

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 133 appear at 68 FR 66582, Nov. 26, 2003.

#### § 133.645 Federal agency or agency.

*Federal agency or agency* means any United States executive department, military department, government corporation, government controlled corporation, any other establishment in the executive branch (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         71,499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,499
<CGS>                                           45,245
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,808
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   430
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,298
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,992
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,306
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (778)
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,528
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11


</TABLE>