alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32(a)





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Emergent Group Inc. (the “registrant”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, Bruce J. Haber,
Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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
registrant.








August
      7, 2009/s/
                Bruce J. HaberBruce
      J. HaberChief
      Executive Officer
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 9, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SCOTT ALAN COZENS, 

Plaintiff–Appellant, No.12-6019

v. (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00841-C)

WOODWARD COUNTY OKLAHOMA,

ex rel. THE WOODWARD COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS; WOODWARD

COUNTY DISTRICT COURT;

WOODWARD COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT,

(W.D. Oklahoma)

Defendants–Appellees.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, McKAY and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint. In this complaint, Plaintiff alleged his constitutional rights were violated

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
when he received a “flat” state court sentence under which he received no good time

credits, allegedly contrary to Oklahoma law. The district court concluded that Plaintiff

could not state a valid claim for relief under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),

because judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his state court

sentence.

On appeal, Plaintiff contends Heck is inapplicable because his § 1983 claim was

based on unconstitutional procedures, similar to the § 1983 claim that was allowed in

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554-55 (1974). However, Heck applies whenever “a

judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction

or sentence,” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, regardless of whether the claim is labeled as

procedural or substantive. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645-46 (1997). The

claim in Wolff could proceed under § 1983 because it “did not call into question the

lawfulness of the plaintiff’s continuing confinement,” Heck, 512 U.S. at 483 (emphasis

omitted), and it is thus readily distinguishable from the instant case. In this case, success

on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, and

therefore the district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Heck.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge

-2-
Case 3:09-cv-01042-JSW Document 27 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-01042-JSW Document 27 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-01042-JSW Document 27 Filed 01/08/10 Page 3 of 3
#### Chevy Chase, F.S.B., Respondent, v Robert W. Lane et al., Defendants. Andrew F. Capoccia Law Centers, L. L. C., Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 110]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered April 28, 1999 in Saratoga County, which, *inter alia,*imposed sanctions on defendants’ counsel.

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to collect a credit card debt and counsel fees. Defendants answered with general denials and the affirmative defenses that plaintiff failed to comply with the Federal Truth in Lending Act (15 USC § 1601 *et seq.),*the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 USC § 1692 *et seq.)*and Personal Property Law § 413.

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment and, in reply papers submitted in response to defendants’ papers in opposition to the motion, requested the imposition of sanctions upon defendants’ counsel, Andrew F. Capoccia Law Centers, L. L. C. (hereinafter Capoccia), for frivolous conduct pursuant to- 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. By written decision dated April 28, 1999, Supreme Court imposed, *inter alia,*a sanction of $1,000 against Capoccia finding that the grounds asserted in opposition to plaintiffs motion “absolutely have no basis for the action in question” and had been so held in similar actions involving Capoccia before the same court, and that Capoccia’s actions constituted frivolous conduct as defined in 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c). The record reveals that defendants have discharged Capoccia as their attorney and settled the underlying case. Capoccia now appeals from that portion of Supreme Court’s order and judgment which imposed the $1,000 sanction.

The authority to impose sanctions is addressed to the discretion of a court and we will not disturb the imposition of sanctions absent an abuse of that discretion *(see, McCue v McCue,*225 AD2d 975, 977). In light of the legion of cases before the sanctioning court and other courts rejecting as meritless Capoccia’s use of the same affirmative defenses interposed here, we find no abuse of discretion in Supreme Court’s imposition of its sanction against Capoccia *(see, e.g., Mountain Lion Baseball v Gaiman,*263 AD2d 636, 639; *Gregware v Key Bank,*218 AD2d 859, 861, *lv denied*87 NY2d 803).

Nor do we find any procedural defects in Supreme Court’s action. Plaintiffs request for sanctions, contained in its counsel’s reply affirmation dated January 25, 1999, and Supreme Court’s January 26, 1999 letter to both counsel requiring appearances at oral argument of the motions scheduled on February 25, 1999 provided sufficient notice and ample opportunity to Capoccia to be heard *{see,*22 NYCRR *546130-1.1 [d]) and Supreme Court’s April 28, 1999 written decision properly set forth the factors it considered in finding Capoccia’s conduct frivolous *(see,*22 NYCRR 130-1.2).

Finally, considering the entire record and mindful that the underlying case has settled and plaintiff has been paid, we decline to impose further sanctions or reimbursement to plaintiff for its legal costs for this appeal.

Cardona, P. J., Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-3544

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jorge Gonzalez

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________

 Submitted: April 13, 2017

Filed: April 28, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Jorge Gonzalez challenges the sentence the

district court imposed following his guilty plea to a drug charge. Gonzalez’s counsel

1

The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Arkansas.
movesto withdraw, and in a brief submitted under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), he raises the issue that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. We

affirm.

The district court imposed a sentence below the applicable advisoryGuidelines

range after discussing both mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances, and

after considering sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude the

sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d

1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing abuse of discretion); United States v. Moore,

581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (explaining, where district court

sentenced defendant below the Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the

court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). Having independently

reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no

nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

We affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
Editorial Note on Part 62
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 62 appear at 64 FR 54539, Oct. 7, 1999, and 67 FR 17612, 17613, Apr. 11, 2002.

§ 62.8 General program requirements. ( a ) *Size of program.* A sponsor, other than a federal government agency, must have no fewer than five actively participating exchange visitors during the annual reporting cycle (e.g., academic, calendar or fiscal year), as stated in its letter of designation or redesignation. The Department of State may, in its sole discretion, waive this requirement.
( b ) *Minimum duration of program.* A sponsor, other than a federal government agency, must provide each exchange visitor, except those sponsored in the short-term scholar category, with a minimum period of participation in the United States of no less than three weeks.
( c ) *Reciprocity.* In conducting its exchange visitor program, sponsors must make a good faith effort to develop and implement, to the fullest extent possible, reciprocal exchanges of persons.
( d ) *Cross-cultural activities.* In addition to category specific requirements, sponsors must: ( 1 ) Offer or make available to exchange visitors and the accompanying spouses and dependents, if any, a variety of appropriate cross-cultural activities. The extent and type of the cross-cultural activities will be determined by the needs and interests of the particular category of exchange visitor. Sponsors will be responsible for determining the appropriate types and numbers of such cross-cultural programs, unless otherwise specified by the Department. The Department of State encourages sponsors to give their exchange visitors the broadest exposure to American society, culture and institutions; and
( 2 ) Encourage exchange visitors to participate voluntarily in activities that are for the purpose of sharing the language, culture, or history of their home country with Americans, provided such activities do not delay the completion of the exchange visitors' program.
[79 FR 60307, Oct. 6, 2014]
EXHIBIT
35.1



SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT



Re:
Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC in its capacity as Servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Sale and Servicing
Agreement, dated as of September 1, 2019, among Mercedes-Benz Auto Receivables Trust 2019-1, as Issuer, Daimler Retail Receivables
LLC, as Depositor, and Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, as Seller and Servicer (the “Servicing Agreement”),
for the period from September 25, 2019, to December 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”).



I,
Brian T. Stevens, certify that:



| | (a) | A
                                         review of the Servicer’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance
                                         under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To
                                         the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its
                                         obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting
                                         Period.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated:
March 19, 2020



| | /s/
    Brian T. Stevens                 | 
| | ---------------------------------------- | 
| | Name:
    Brian T. Stevens              
| | Title:
    Vice President and Controller
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01962

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 01962\01962_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

01962\01962_Completeness_Checklist.XLS EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 01962\01962_PartA.XLS Plant submitted survey file

x 01962\01962_PartE.XLS Plant submitted survey file

x 01962\01962_PartH.XLS Plant submitted survey file

01962\Certification Statement Plant ID_01962.pdf Plant certification statement

x x 01962\Supporting Documentation\01962_EPA_LVC_II_Waterbalance_ID-01962.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01962\Supporting Documentation\01962_EPA_LVCII_Plot_Plan_MAP-1_ID-01962.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01962\Supporting Documentation\01962_MAP-1.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x x 01962\Supporting Documentation\01962_WB-1.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALERIE ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KAISER PERMANENTE

INTERNATIONAL, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01270 JSW

ORDER RESETTING HEARING

ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff shall file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by no

later than April 19, 2010 and Defendants shall file their reply, if any, by no later than April 26,

2010. The Court will hear the motion for summary judgment on May 14, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. If

any of the parties seek to modify this briefing schedule, they must submit a request

demonstrating good cause for a modification. If the Court finds the matter suitable for

disposition without oral argument, it shall notify the parties in advance of the hearing date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01270-JSW Document 62 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 100.1 Authority.

This regulation is issued under the authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to administer and enforce title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (the Fair Housing Act).
### SUBCHAPTER VII—SALE OF PUBLIC LANDS SUBJECT TO UNINTENTIONAL TRESPASS
#### § 203.280 One-time or Up-front MIP.

For mortgages for which a one-time or up-front MIP is to be charged in accordance with §§ 203.259a, 203.284, or 203.285, the mortgagee shall, as a condition to the endorsement of the mortgage for insurance, pay to the Commissioner for the account of the mortgagor, in a manner prescribed by the Commissioner, a premium representing the total obligation for the insuring of the mortgage by the Commissioner or the up-front portion of the total obligation, as applicable, within 10 calendar days after the date of loan closing or within 10 calendar days after the date of disbursement of the mortgage proceeds, whichever is later.

[70 FR 19669, Apr. 13, 2005]
### §8854. Utilization of National Forest System in wood energy development projects

The Secretary of Agriculture may make available the timber resources of the National Forest System, in accordance with appropriate timber appraisal and sale procedures, for use by biomass energy projects.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title II, §261, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 710.)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2894 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2894

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 102 South Walters Avenue in Hodgenville, Kentucky, as the ``Abraham 
               Lincoln Birthplace Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2005

    Mr. Lewis of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Davis of 
   Kentucky, Mr. Chandler, Mrs. Northup, and Mr. Rogers of Kentucky) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 102 South Walters Avenue in Hodgenville, Kentucky, as the ``Abraham 
               Lincoln Birthplace Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ABRAHAM LINCOLN BIRTHPLACE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 102 South Walters Avenue in Hodgenville, Kentucky, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace Post Office 
Building''.
    (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 ``Abraham 
Lincoln Birthplace Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Plaintiffs’ Certification Regarding Settlement (CASE NO. C 08-4134 (MMC)) 

WEINBERG, ROGER & 

ROSENFELD 

A Professional Corporation 

1001 Marina Village Parkway 

Suite 200 

Alameda, CA 94501-1091 

510.337.1001

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

LINDA BALDWIN JONES, Bar No. 178922 

KRISTINA M. ZINNEN, Bar No. 245346 

WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD 

A Professional Corporation 

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200 

Alameda, California 94501-1091 

Telephone 510.337.1001 

Fax 510.337.1023 

E-mail: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

PAUL BENSI, BART FLORENCE, JERRY 

KALMAR, and LYLE SETTER, in 

their capacities as Trustees of the 

STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL 39 

PENSION TRUST FUND and STATIONARY 

ENGINEERS LOCAL 39 HEALTH AND 

WELFARE FUND, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

SETON MEDICAL CENTER, a California 

Corporation; DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY 

HEALTH SYSTEM, a California Corporation, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 08-4134 (MMC) 

PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATION 

REGARDING SETTLEMENT

On November 3, 2009, the Court issued an Order of Dismissal to take effect within ninety 

days of said Order or February 1, 2010. The parties are in the process of obtaining all signatures 

on the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release and will have the settlement transaction 

completed within 30 days from the date of this Certification Regarding Settlement. Upon the 

completion of the settlement transaction, the parties will file a stipulation (and proposed order) to 

dismiss the action with prejudice. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs hereby submit this 

AND ORDER THEREON

Case 3:08-cv-04134-MMC Document 36 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 2
 - 2 - 

Plaintiffs’ Certification Regarding Settlement (CASE NO. C 08-4134 (MMC)) 

WEINBERG, ROGER & 

ROSENFELD 

A Professional Corporation 

1001 Marina Village Parkway 

Suite 200 

Alameda, CA 94501-1091 

510.337.1001

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

Certification Regarding Settlement and request that the Court continue the ninety day Order of 

Dismissal for an additional 30 days in order to allow the parties time to complete the settlement 

transaction.

Dated: January 27, 2010 

WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD 

A Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Linda Baldwin Jones 

 LINDA BALDWIN JONES 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

119081/559050 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Maxine M. Chesney

Dated: January 29, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-04134-MMC Document 36 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.600 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to set forth the Department's equal opportunity regulations for affirmative fair housing marketing under FHA subsidized and unsubsidized housing programs.
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.952 Supplementary specific requirements under the HUD building product standards and certification program for particleboard interior stair treads. ( a ) *Applicable standards.* ( 1 ) All interior particleboard stair treads shall be designed, manufactured, and tested in compliance with ANSI A208.1-1993 Particleboard, Grade M-3.
( 2 ) This standard has been approved by the Director of the Federal Register for incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, and is available from the American National Standards Institute, Inc., 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.
( b ) *Labeling.* Under the procedures set forth in § 200.935(d)(6) concerning labeling of a product, the administrator's validation mark and the manufacturer's certification of compliance with the applicable standard are required to be on the certification label issued by the administrator to the manufacturer. Each interior particleboard stair tread shall include the manufacturer's statement of conformance to UM 70b, a statement that this product is for interior use only, and the manufacturer's name and plant location.
( c ) *Periodic tests and quality assurance.* Under the procedures set forth in § 200.935(d)(8) concerning periodic tests and quality assurance inspections, the frequency of testing for a product shall be described in the specific building product certification program. In the case of interior particleboard stair treads, testing and inspection shall be conducted as follows: ( 1 ) At least once every three months, the administrator shall visit the manufacturer's facility to select a sample for testing in a laboratory approved by the administrator.
( 2 ) The administrator shall also review the quality assurance procedures twice a year to assure that they are being followed by the manufacturer.
[63 FR 5424, Feb. 2, 1998]