alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.1

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE 

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the “Company”), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer” and “Sponsor”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of August 19, 2015 among the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2015-3 Owner Trust, as follows:

|   | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2018, and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of May, 2018.

 

|   | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Paul C. Honda                                        |  |
|   | Vice President and Assistant Secretary               |  |
|   | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |  |
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 11225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5160]



[[Page 11225]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Environmental Impact Statement; Lee and Collier Counties, Florida

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of notice of intent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice of cancellation to advise the 
public that we are no longer lead Federal Agency for preparation of an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed County Road 951 
highway project in Lee and Collier Counties, Florida. This is formal 
cancellation of the notice of intent that was published in the Federal 
Register on June 27, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. George Hadley, Environmental 
Programs Coordinator, Federal Highway Administration, 545 John Knox 
Road, Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32303, Telephone (850) 942-9650 
extension 3011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of intent to prepare an EIS was 
for proposed roadway improvements by upgrading the existing facility or 
building on new alignment for a distance of approximately 15 miles. The 
notice of intent to prepare an EIS is rescinded.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Research, Planning and Construction. The regulations 
implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding inter-governmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this 
program.)


    Issued on: March 4, 2010.
George B. Hadley,
Environmental Programs Coordinator, Tallahassee, Florida.
[FR Doc. 2010-5160 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
### Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet

Kentucky Division for Air Quality



# -------------------------------------------

Appendix C Modeling Analysis Protocol

and Quality Assurance Project Plan[This page intentionally left blank.]

### Introduction

The regional haze modeling was coordinated by th e Southeast Regional Planning Organization, Visibility Improvement State a nd Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), which is comprised of the ten Southeast States (Alabama , Florida, Georgia, Ke ntucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia) and the local programs and tribal agencies located within these states. VI STAS contracted with E nviron International Corp, Alpine Geophysics, LLC and the University of Ca lifornia Riverside to perform the emissions and air quality modeling for this regional haze stat e and tribal implementation plans implementation plans.

Attachment C.1 contains modeling protoc o l submitted by the contractors entitled Modeling Protocol for the VISTAS Phas e II Regional Haze Modeling . The modeling protocol documents the meteorological model, emissions model and ai r quality model that will be used for this project. It discusses details about the configuration of the models, modeling domains, quality assurance objectives, etc.

Attachment C.2 contains the qua lity assurance project plan th at was developed by the modeling

contra ctors to outline the quality assurance proc edures to be used in the modeling process.

Attachment C3 contains an article from Atmospheric Environment published in 2006

. The article

contains details of m odifications made to th e secondary organic aerosols (SOA) module in CMAQ, by ENVIRON, to better quantify SOA. This was necessary as preliminary modeling runs showed organic carbon was significantly under-predicted in the summer and this under prediction was determined to be unacceptable becau se organic carbon is a major contributor to PM mass and visibility impairment in the s outheastern US. The modified SOA module in CMAQ incorporates additional SOA formation based on emissions data from pine forests in Durham, NC. Full details of the SOA module are included in section 4 of the article.[This page intentionally left blank.]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2017

s1023 

# Order

Clerk October 31, 2017

153946

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153946

COA: 332195

Berrien CC: 2015

- 004230

- FH

JUMAR DEWYAN HARRIS

- JAMES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of December 28, 2016, the application for leave to appeal the May 5,

2016 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People

v Steanhouse (Docket No. 152849) and People v Masroor (Docket Nos. 152946

- 8). On

order of the Court, the cases having been decided on July 24, 2017, 500 Mich 453 (2017),

the application is again considered, and it is DENIED , because we are not persuaded that

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

W ILDER , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
39471.

#### GALE, Next Friend v. STEWART, Administrator.

Decided April 17, 1962.

*768
      *G. B. Cowart,*for plaintiff in error.

*Lissner & Killian, Jack J. Lissner, Jr.,*contra.

Hall, Judge.

The Georgia law without doubt permits, and in some cases requires, separate portions of the estate to be.set aside as year’s support to the widow and to children of the deceased. *Code Ann.*§ 113-1002; *Code*§ 113-1008; *Horn v. Truett,*114 Ga. 995 (41 SE 498); *Phillips v. Atkinson,*139 Ga. 740 (78 SE 116); *Jacobson v. Jacobson,*107 Ga. 29 (32 SE 877). Accord *Miller v. Miller,*105 Ga. 305, 312 (31 SE 186); *Jones v. Cooner,*137 Ga. 681 (74 SE 51); *DeJarnette v. DeJarnette,*176 Ga. 204, 209 (167 SE 526); *Miller v. Miller,*96 Ga. App. 469, 470 (100 SE2d 594).

It is trae that, when a widow makes application for the benefit of herself and her minor children, the year’s support set aside inures to the benefit of the widow and children, and not the widow alone. *Ennis v. Ennis,*207 Ga. 665, 673 (63 SE2d 887); *Farmers Bank of Tifton v. Williams,*188 Ga. 789 (5 SE2d 195); *Miller v. Miller,*105 Ga. 305, 312, supra.

“In order for minor children to take an interest in property set apart as a year’s support, it should in some manner appear in the application that it is made in their behalf; and . . . . where it affirmatively appears that the application was made by the widow, and that the minor children were not referred to therein by name or otherwise, they take no interest in the property set apart.” *Farmers Bank of Tifton v. Williams,*188 Ga. 789, 792, supra.

The present record shows that printed forms were used for the widow’s petition for year’s support. It contained a prayer for “setting apart [year’s support] to your petitioner and her *769•-minor children to wit: (name them),” followed by a space for filling in names. The name “James Bryan Canady” had been written in the space but was marked out, as were the printed words “and her-minor children.” The words “and children,” “and minor children,” and “James Bryan Canady” were also marked out in the administrator’s acknowledgment of service, the order appointing appraisers, the return of the appraisers, the citation, and the order making the return of the appraisers the judgment of the court. Though at several places in the printed forms the words “minor children” and “children” were not marked out, it appears from the face of the proceedings as a whole that it was intended that year’s support be set aside for the widow alone and that this was actually done. We must therefore treat that allowance of year’s support as not including any minor child as a beneficiary. *Farmers Bank of Tifton v. Williams,*188 Ga. 789, 793, supra. The present plaintiff, then, took no beneficial interest in the property set aside to the widow. *Williams v. Rosette,*177 Ga. 528, 530 (170 SE 373). Consequently he is not barred, on account of the allowance to the widow, from obtaining a year’s support as a minor child of the deceased.

The trial court erred in overruling the demurrer to the caveat and sustaining the caveat as a matter of law.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.*
EX-31Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I,Kunal K. Singh, certify that:

 

1. Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required tobe filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of theJPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-C31 (the "Exchange Actperiodic reports");

 

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

 

3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances ofnoncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report onForm 10-K.

 

Ingiving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on informationprovided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

MidlandLoan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior TrustAdvisor, Computershare Trust Company, National Association, as ServicingFunction Participant for the Certificate Administrator and Computershare TrustCompany, National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for theCustodian.

 

 

Dated:March 14, 2024

 

 

/s/ KunalK. Singh

KunalK. Singh

Presidentand Chief Executive Officer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.3320 Eye sphere implant. ( a ) *Identification.* An eye sphere implant is a device intended to be implanted in the eyeball to occupy space following the removal of the contents of the eyeball with the sclera left intact.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device, when it is an ocular peg which is supplied sterile only, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 886.9.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 84 FR 71817, Dec. 30, 2019]
Denied and Opinion Filed July 20, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00590-CV

IN RE JONATHAN RUTE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-03470-2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith

Opinion by Justice Smith

In his July 15, 2021 amended petition for writ of mandamus and request for 

emergency relief, relator contends that the trial court abused its discretion by 

(1) concluding that he waived his privileges and privacy rights regarding certain 

emails; and (2) ordering in camera review of those emails. Entitlement to mandamus 

relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and 

that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 

124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). 
–2–

Based on our review of the petition and record, we conclude that relator has 

failed to show his entitlement to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus, and deny the request for emergency relief as moot.

210590f.p05

/Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH

JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

                                                          August 1, 2003


Biopure Corporation
11 Hurley Street
Cambridge, MA 02141

           Re: Lock-up of Securities

Gentlemen:

     I am a director of Biopure Corporation ("Biopure"). I hold 35,000 shares of
Class A Common Stock of Biopure ("Common Stock") together with associated Common
Stock warrants to purchase 7,000 additional shares (collectively, the
"Securities") which were issued in an offering on March 25, 2003 (the
"Offering"). You intend to seek stockholder approval for sales to insiders in
the Offering at the 2004 annual meeting of stockholders. At your request, in the
interim, I agree that the Securities shall not be sold, transferred, assigned,
pledged or hypothecated, nor will I vote any of the Common Stock included in the
Securities. In addition, if the Company pays a dividend on its Common Stock,
dividends on the Securities will be withheld.


                                                   Very truly yours,



                                                   C. Everett Koop, M.D.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7964 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to establish, implement, or enforce 

any COVID–19 mask mandate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 11, 2024 

Mr. OGLES (for himself, Mr. STEUBE, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. 

DUNCAN, Mr. PERRY, Mr. NORMAN, and Mrs. SPARTZ) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to establish, implement, 

or enforce any COVID–19 mask mandate. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defunding Unscientific 

5 Mask Mandates Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7964 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL FUNDS TO ENFORCE COVID–19 MASK 

2 MANDATES. 

3 No Federal funds may be used to establish, imple4 ment, or enforce any requirement to wear a facial covering 

5 to prevent the spread of COVID–19. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2017006EN.01001201.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2016 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), LG Electronics Inc.

(Case C-43/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative mark including the word elements ‘compressor technology’ - Opposition of the proprietor of the word marks KOMPRESSOR PLUS and KOMPRESSOR - Partial refusal of registration - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 60 - Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Article 8(3) - ‘Ancillary’ appeal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Weak distinctive character of the earlier national marks - Likelihood of confusion))

(2017/C 006/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch and R. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent), LG Electronics Inc.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

1

---
#### § 1.1313(c)-1 Related taxpayer.

An adjustment in the case of the taxpayer with respect to whom the error was made may be authorized under section 1311 although the determination is made with respect to a different taxpayer, provided that such taxpayers stand in one of the relationships specified in section 1313(c). The concept of *related taxpayer* has application to all of the circumstances of adjustment specified in § 1.1312-1 through § 1.1312-5 if the related taxpayer is one described in section 1313(c); it has application to the circumstances of adjustment specified in § 1.1312-6 only if the related taxpayer is one described in section 1313(c)(7); it does not apply in the circumstances specified in § 1.1312-7. If such relationship exists, it is not essential that the error involve a transaction made possible only by reason of the existence of the relationship. For example, if the error with respect to which an adjustment is sought under section 1311 grew out of an assignment of rents between taxpayer A and taxpayer B, who are partners, and the determination is with respect to taxpayer A, an adjustment with respect to taxpayer B may be permissible despite the fact that the assignment had nothing to do with the business of the partnership. The relationship need not exist throughout the entire taxable year with respect to which the error was made, but only at some time during that taxable year. For example, if a taxpayer on February 15 assigns to his fiancee the net rents of a building which the taxpayer owns, and the two are married before the end of the taxable year, an adjustment may be permissible if the determination relates to such rents despite the fact that they were not husband and wife at the time of the assignment. See § 1.1311(b)-3 for the requirement in certain cases that the relationship exist at the time an inconsistent position is first maintained.

[T.D. 6617, 27 FR 10824, Nov. 7, 1962]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

EUGENE MILTON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1956

[August 31, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael I. Rothschild, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 08-21359 CF10A.

Eugene Milton, Indiantown, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2015007EN.01004301.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/43

---

Action brought on 5 November 2014 — TeamBank v OHIM — Easy Asset Management (easy Credit)

(Case T-745/14)

(2015/C 007/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nürnberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Lindner, D. Terheggen and T. Kiphuth, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Easy Asset Management AD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘easy Credit’ — International Registration designating the European Union No 8 11  527

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2014 in Case R 1975/2013-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision insofar as it concerns goods and services in Classes 36 and 38; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision insofar as it concerns goods and services in Classes 36 and 38;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 52(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 52(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6265 Examination gown. ( a ) *Identification.* An examination gown is a device intended for medical purposes that is made of cloth, paper, or other material that is draped over or worn by a patient as a body covering during a medical examination.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 880.9. If the device is not labeled or otherwise represented as sterile, it is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 66 FR 38806, July 25, 2001]