alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 August 5, 2015 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of
AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2015-3 (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, 2018 through December 31, 2018, 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 Coffey                       |  | Dated: March 8, 2019
|                                     | Connie Coffey                           |  |                     
|                                     | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |                     
|                                     | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-41178

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ELIAS SALINAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CR-164-5

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Elias Salinas has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Salinas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 24, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-41178 Document: 00511581499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2011
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post Effective Amendment No. 16 to
Registration Statement No. 33-56790 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance
Company Separate Account One of our report dated March 26, 2003, relating to
the financial statements of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company, and
of our report dated February 21, 2003, relating to the financial statements of
Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company Separate Account One, appearing in
the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration
Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading "Independent Public
Accountants" in such Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Hartford, Connecticut

April 7, 2003
§ 1.1474-3 Withheld tax as credit to beneficial owner of income. ( a ) *Creditable tax.* The entire amount of the income, if any, attributable to a payment from which tax is required to be withheld under chapter 4 (including income deemed paid by a withholding agent under § 1.1473-1(a)(2)(v)) shall be included in gross income in a return required to be made by the beneficial owner of the income, without deduction for the amount required to be or actually withheld, but the amount of tax actually withheld shall be allowed as a credit against the total income tax computed in the beneficial owner's return.
( b ) *Amounts paid to persons that are not the beneficial owners.* Amounts actually deducted and withheld under chapter 4 on payments made to a fiduciary, agent, partnership, trust, or intermediary are deemed to have been paid by the beneficial owner of the item of income or other payment subject to withholding under chapter 4, except when the fiduciary, agent, partnership, trust, or intermediary pays the tax from its own funds and does not in turn withhold with respect to the payment made to such person. Thus, for example, if a beneficiary of a trust is subject to the taxes imposed by section 1, 2, 3, or 11 upon any amount of distributable net income or other taxable distribution received from a foreign trust, the part of any amount withheld at source under chapter 4 that is properly allocable to the income so taxed to such beneficiary shall be credited against the amount of the income tax computed upon the beneficiary's return, and any excess shall be refunded to the beneficiary in accordance with § 1.1474-5 and chapter 65 of the Code.
( c ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section applies January 28, 2013.
[T.D. 9610, 78 FR 5992, Jan. 28, 2013]
#### § 1.147(b)-1 Bond maturity limitation-treatment of working capital.

Section 147(b) does not apply to proceeds of a private activity bond issue used to finance working capital expenditures.

[T.D. 8476, 58 FR 33515, June 18, 1993]
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.3 Effective dates of requirement for premarket approval. A device included in this part that is classified into class III (premarket approval) shall not be commercially distributed after the date shown in the regulation classifying the device unless the manufacturer has an approval under section 515 of the act (unless an exemption has been granted under section 520(g)(2) of the act). An approval under section 515 of the act consists of FDA's issuance of an order approving an application of premarket approval (PMA) for the device or declaring completed a product development protocol (PDP) for the device. ( a ) Before FDA requires that a device commercially distributed before the enactment date of the amendments, or a device that has been found substantially equivalent to such a device, has an approval under section 515 of the act FDA must promulgate a regulation under section 515(b) of the act requiring such approval, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. Such a regulation under section 515(b) of the act shall not be effective during the grace period ending on the 90th day after its promulgation or on the last day of the 30th full calendar month after the regulation that classifies the device into class III is effective, whichever is later. See section 501(f)(2)(B) of the act. Accordingly, unless an effective date of the requirement for premarket approval is shown in the regulation for a device classified into class III in this part, the device may be commercially distributed without FDA's issuance of an order approving a PMA or declaring completed a PDP for the device. If FDA promulgates a regulation under section 515(b) of the act requiring premarket approval for a device, section 501(f)(1)(A) of the act applies to the device.
( b ) Any new, not substantially equivalent, device introduced into commercial distribution on or after May 28, 1976, includiing a device formerly marketed that has been substantially altered, is classified by statute (section 513(f) of the act) into class III without any grace period and FDA must have issued an order approving a PMA or declaring completed a PDP for the device before the device is commercially distributed unless it is reclassified. If FDA knows that a device being commercially distributed may be a “new” device as defined in this section because of any new intended use or other reasons, FDA may codify the statutory classification of the device into class III for such new use. Accordingly, the regulation for such a class III device states that as of the enactment date of the amendments, May 28, 1976, the device must have an approval under section 515 of the act before commercial distribution.
[52 FR 17741, May 11, 1987]
AMENDED CLD-133 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 23-1629

___________

IN RE: TODD ELLIOTT KOGER, SR.,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:22-cv-01823)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 27, 2023

Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 31, 2023)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Todd Elliott Koger, Sr., a frequent filer in the federal courts, has filed in our Court 

a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. The petition, which is far from a model of clarity, 

appears to (1) take issue with what has transpired in various Pennsylvania state-court 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

proceedings involving Koger and/or certain real property in Pittsburgh, and (2) allege that 

“Wilkinsburg et al[.]” has breached a 1992 settlement agreement involving Koger and 

otherwise wronged him.

Although Koger generally refers to our authority to grant mandamus relief, he does 

not make clear what form of mandamus relief he is seeking here.

1

 And he has failed to 

show that he is entitled to any form of mandamus relief. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 

U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (explaining that, to obtain a writ of mandamus, a 

petitioner must show that “(1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, 

(2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is 

appropriate under the circumstances” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks 

omitted)); see also Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996) (explaining that 

mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal). Accordingly, we will deny his petition.2

1 Recently, Koger removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Pennsylvania an ejectment action that had been filed against him in Pennsylvania state 

court. In January 2023, the District Court remanded the case to state court based on the 

District Court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. (See Dist. Ct. Order 

entered January 4, 2023, in Case No. 2:22-cv-01823.) Koger appealed from that remand 

order, and we dismissed that appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction in March 2023. See 

Usorph v. Koger, C.A. No. 23-1029. Although the caption of Koger’s motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis filed in this mandamus action indicates that his mandamus petition is 

“[r]elated” to that District Court case, the petition itself does not appear to seek any relief 

in connection with those District Court proceedings.

 

2 Koger’s “Amended Petition for Emergency TRO Injunctive Relief,” which appears to 

seek a temporary restraining order, is denied.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

RE: Annual Statement ofCompliance for MAD 2015-11MD Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of September 6, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer'sknowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

/s/ Jeffrey Coletta

Jeffrey Coletta

Assistant Secretary

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Calvin H. Knowlton, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Tabula Rasa HealthCare, Inc.; and

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
| Date: May 4, 2017 | /s/ DR. CALVIN H.   KNOWLTON  |
|------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                   | Dr. Calvin H. Knowlton   |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                   | Principal Executive   Officer |

 

----
# C_2014351EN.01002601.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/26

---

Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)

(Case T-621/14)

2014/C 351/33

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda (Luanda, Angola) (represented by: A. Oliveira, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (Berlin, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 June 2014 given in Case R 1312/2013-2. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 June 2014 given in Case R 1312/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DINKOOL’ for goods in Classes 1-3, 5-7, 12, 16, 20 and 21 — Community trade mark application No 1 0465 946

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 2 29  048 and earlier non-registered sign in Germany ‘DIN’

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the contested CTM application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2014361EN.01002402.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/24

---

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO ORGANIC)

(Case T-610/14)

2014/C 361/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 in case R 301/2014-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 in case R 301/2014-4;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO ORGANIC’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 2 0 06  409

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations.

---
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RETROFIT SWITCH YARD LOCOMOTIVES, STATEWIDE

RACM Analysis

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Locomotives - 1

Control Measure:

Retrofit Switch Yard Locomotives (SYL)

Description:

Both 2-stroke and 4-stroke switch yard locomotives in a total of 10 switch yards throughout the 

ozone nonattainment area and 9 yards in the PM 2.5 nonattainment area will utilize retrofit and 

idle reduction equipment to reduce emissions from 5 engines per yard. 

Documentation:

 Current operable switch yard locations found at: www.conrail.com/freight.htm

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long 

Duration Switch Yard Locomotive Idling Emission Reductions in State Implementation 

Plans,” Office of Transportation and Air Quality, January, 2004.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Case Study: Chicago Locomotive Idle 

Reduction Project,” Office of Air and Radiation, March, 2004.

 Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Retail Gasoline Prices:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html

Inputs/Assumptions:

 SYL operates 90% of the days out of the year, or 329 days. The industry average is 92%

 SYL idles 10 hours per day, 3,000 hours annually.

 All idle hours can be impacted by idle reduction technology.

 There are 10 counties in the ozone nonattainment area with at least one yard.

 There are 9 counties in the PM2.5 nonattainment area with at least one yard.

 Each yard will retrofit 5 engines: 3, 4-stroke and 2, 2-stroke.

 The current documentation does not include any guidance on calculating VOC or SO2 

emissions or benefits.

 The cost of the idle reduction technology is spread over the assumed life of 6 years.

 Retrofit technology for each SYL is assumed to cost $30,000.

 Gasoline cost = $2.40/gallon

 The average SYL consumes 0.8 gallons of fuel per hour of idling.

 Emission factors:

2-Stroke 

(g/hr)

4-Stroke 

(g/hr)

APU 

(g/hr)

NOx 800 620 71

PM2.5 26 32 5.7

Results:

Ozone Analysis – Daily Benefits (tpd) in New Jersey:

Benefits 

(Reductions)

Ozone Non-Attainment Area

NY-NJ-CT PA-NJ-MD-DE

VOC (Tons/Day) NA NA

NOx (Tons/Day) 0.17 0.17
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RETROFIT SWITCH YARD LOCOMOTIVES, STATEWIDE

RACM Analysis

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Locomotives - 2

PM2.5 Analysis – Annual Benefits (tpy) in New Jersey:

Benefits 

(Reductions)

PM2.5 Non-Attainment Area

NY-NJ-CT PA-NJ-DE

NOx (Tons/Year) 61.61 30.80

PM2.5 (Tons/Year) 2.37 1.19

SO2 (Tons/Year) NA NA

Cost Benefit Results:

Nonattainment Area

Ozone ($/tpd)

VOC NOx

NY-NJ-CT NA $ (585)

PA-NJ-MD-DE NA $ (585)

Statewide NA $ (585)

Nonattainment Area

PM2.5 ($/tpy)

NOx PM2.5 SO2

NY-NJ-CT $ (370) $ (9,616) NA 

PA-NJ-DE $ (370) $ (9,616) NA 

Statewide $ (370) $ (9,616) NA 

* Parentheses denote a cost savings.
#### § 1.1312-8 Law applicable in determination of error.

The question whether there was an erroneous inclusion, exclusion, omission, allowance, disallowance, recognition, or nonrecognition is determined under the provisions of the internal revenue laws applicable with respect to the year as to which the inclusion, exclusion, omission, allowance, disallowance, recognition, or nonrecognition, as the case may be, was made. The fact that the inclusion, exclusion, omission, allowance, disallowance, recognition, or nonrecognition, as the case may be, was in pursuance of an interpretation, either judicial or administrative, accorded such provisions of the internal revenue laws at the time of such action is not necessarily determinative of this question. For example, if a later judicial decision authoritatively alters such interpretation so that such action was contrary to such provisions of the internal revenue laws as later interpreted, the inclusion, exclusion, omission, allowance, disallowance, recognition, or nonrecognition, as the case may be, is erroneous within the meaning of section 1312.

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12036, Nov. 26, 1960. Redesignated by T.D. 6617, 27 FR 10824, Nov. 7, 1962]