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

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows: 

(1) The undersigned has caused a reviewof the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and ServicingAgreement, dated as of July 22, 2015 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables2015-B Owner Trust, to be conducted under his supervision; and 

(2) To the best of theundersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forpublicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 26th day of June, 2018.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 1497

JUSTIN E. FAIRFAX , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. NEW YORK PUBLIC RADIO , Defendant

- Appellee , and
WNYC , Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthon y John Trenga , Senior District Judge. ( 1:22

- cv - 00895

- AJT

- IDD )

Submitted : June 27, 2024 Decided: August 26, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1497 Doc: 37 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 Justin E. Fairfax, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew M. Levine, New York, New York , Jonathan R. Tuttle, DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP, Washington, D

. C

. , for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1497 Doc: 37 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: Justin E. Fairfax appeals the district court’s order granting New York Public Radio’s motion s to dismiss Fairfax’s state law claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress and for attorneys’ fees and costs under Virginia’s anti

- SLAPP statute, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01

- 223.2

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Fairfax v. N

. Y

. Pub. Radio , No. 1:22

- cv 00895

- AJT

- IDD ( E.D. Va

. Apr. 4, 2023 ). We dispense with oral arg ument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1497 Doc: 37 Filed: 08/26/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
§ 876.5340 Nonimplanted nerve stimulator for functional abdominal pain relief. ( a ) *Identification.* A nonimplanted nerve stimulator for functional abdominal pain relief is a device that stimulates nerves remotely from the source of pain with the intent to relieve functional abdominal pain. This generic type of device does not include devices designed to relieve pelvic pain.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
( 2 ) Electromagnetic compatibility and electrical, mechanical, and thermal safety testing must be performed.
( 3 ) Electrical performance testing of the device and electrodes must be conducted to validate the specified electrical output and duration of stimulation of the device.
( 4 ) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
( 5 ) Sterility testing of the percutaneous components of the device must be performed.
( 6 ) Shelf life testing must be performed to demonstrate continued sterility, package integrity, and device functionality over the labeled shelf life.
( 7 ) Labeling must include the following: ( i ) A detailed summary of the device technical parameters;
( ii ) A warning stating that the device is only for use on clean, intact skin;
( iii ) Instructions for use, including placement of the device on the patient; and
( iv ) A shelf life.
[86 FR 71143, Dec. 15, 2021]
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 1

(Electronic Format)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

District: Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District

Rule No(s): 1.1 Date adopted/Amended/Rescinded: May 8, 2013

Rule Title(s): General Provisions and Definitions

Date Submitted to ARB: May 10, 2013

If an Amended Rule, Date Last Amended (or Adopted): May 14, 2008

Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? Yes No ( If No, do not complete remainder of form)

District Contact: Paul Hensleigh Phone Number: 530-757-3665 E-mail Address: phensleigh@ysaqmd.org

Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Changes: New Rule Amended Rule

This rule is being amended to add 8 additional exempt comp ounds. In addition, sections of the rule were moved

for clarity and several definitions were added and/or amended.

Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Check): ROG (NOx) SO2

(CO) PM TAC (name):

II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS

Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when implemented, w ill result in quantifiable changes in emissions. Attach referenc e(s) for emission factor(s)

and other information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emission information provided below was determined

.

Net Effect on Emissions: Increase Decrease N/A

Emission Reduction Commitment in SIP fo r this Source Category:

Inventory Year Used to Calculate Changes in Emissions: Area Affected:

Future Year Control Profile Estimate (Provide information on as many years as possible) :

Baseline Inventory in the SIP for the Control Measure:

Emissions Reduction Commitment in the SIP for the Control Measure:

Revised Baseline Inventory (if any):

Revised Emission Reduction Estimate (if developed):

Note that the district’s input to the Rule Evaluation Form will not be used as input to the ARB’s emission forecasting and

planning.

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

District is: Attainment Nonattainment Split

Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Sources Affected by this Amendment:

Percent in Nonattainment Area: %CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 2

(Electronic Format)

Number of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled: Percent in Nonattainment Area: %

Name(s) and Location(s) (city and county) of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule (Attach additional sheets as

necessary) :

IV. EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Does the Rule Include Emission Limits that are Continuous? Yes No

If Yes, Those Limits are in Sectio n(s) of the Rule.

Other Methods in the Rule for Achieving Emission Reductions are:

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

The Rule Contains:

Emission Limits in Section(s): Wo rk Practice Standards in Section(s):

Recordkeeping Requirements in Section(s): Reporting Requirements in Section(s):

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN

No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts attainment

Discussion:
EXHIBIT 10.20
                                  -------------



SCHEDULE 10.20 IDENTIFYING  CONTRACTS THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY  SIMILAR TO EXHIBIT
10.19 IN ALL MATERIAL  RESPECTS EXCEPT AS TO THE PARTIES  THERETO,  THE DATES OF
EXECUTION AND THE LOAN AMOUNT



--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Date                                    Loan Amount
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
December 3, 2002                        $5,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
December 3, 2002                        $5,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
December 3, 2002                        $5,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
December 9, 2002                        $5,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
December 23, 2002                       $15,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
December 24, 2002                       $35,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
December 24, 2002                       $25,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
December 27, 2002                       $10,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
January 17, 2003                        $25,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
January 24, 2003                        $10,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
January 28, 2003                        $10,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
January 31, 2003                        $25,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
February 3, 2003                        $50,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
February 12, 2003                       $25,000
--------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------




                                      100
#### § 1.332-1 Distributions in liquidation of subsidiary corporation; general.

Under the general rule prescribed by section 331 for the treatment of distributions in liquidation of a corporation, amounts received by one corporation in complete liquidation of another corporation are treated as in full payment in exchange for stock in such other corporation, and gain or loss from the receipt of such amounts is to be determined as provided in section 1001. Section 332 excepts from the general rule property received, under certain specifically described circumstances, by one corporation as a distribution in complete liquidation of the stock of another corporation and provides for the nonrecognition of gain or loss in those cases which meet the statutory requirements. Section 367 places a limitation on the application of section 332 in the case of foreign corporations. See section 334(b) for the basis for determining gain or loss from the subsequent sale of property received upon complete liquidations such as described in this section. See section 453(d)(4)(A) relative to distribution of installment obligations by subsidiary.
# C_2017104EN.01004002.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Construlink v EUIPO — Wit-Software (GATEWIT)

(Case T-351/14) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GATEWIT - Earlier EU figurative mark wit software - Earlier national business name Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 104/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: M. Lopes Rocha and A. Bertrand, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: F. Teixeira Baptista and C. Tomás Pedro, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1059/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel and Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for the purposes of the present proceedings and by Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for the purposes of the present proceedings and by Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

1

---
#### The State of Indiana, ex rel. Gleason, v. Lyons, Mayor.

[No. 21,382.

Filed December 17, 1909.]

*Appeal.*— Dismissal—Moot *Questions.*— Costs.—An appeal will not be entertained in order to determine merely a question of costs.

Prom Yigo Circuit Court; *Charles M. Fortune,*Judge.

Action by The State of Indiana, on the relation of William T. Gleason, against James Lyons, as mayor of the City of Terre Haute. Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*J. T. Walker*and *O. D. Davis,*for appellant.

*McNutt & Wallace, L. D. Leveque, Frank S. Bawley, Lamb, Beasley & Sawyer,*and *Foley & Boyse,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

This was an action in the court below for a mandate to require appellee, as mayor, to approve the bond tendered to him by appellant, as appointee of the Governor to the office of judge of the city court of Terre Haute.

This is a companion case to *State, ex rel.,*v. *Gerdink*(1909), *ante,*245, in which it was held that the appointment made by the mayor was valid. The real controversy is ended, and the appeal will not be further entertained to determine the question of costs only, and the appeal is dismissed. *Dunn*v. *State, ex rel.*(1904), 163 Ind. 317, and cases cited.
Exhibit
      32


CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Itec Environmental Group, Inc., a
      Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
      September **** 30,
      2006,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Rodney
      S.
      Rougelot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Frederick W. Smith,
      Principal Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to
§ 906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to their
      knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Rodney S. Rougelot


By:
      Rodney S. Rougelot


Its:
      Chief Executive Officer, Director





/s/
      Frederick W. Smith


By:
      Frederick W. Smith


Its:
      Principal Financial Officer/


Acting
      Chief Financial Officer





November
        20, 2006





[A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Itec Environmental Group, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### South Georgia Trust Company *v.*Neal.

Hill, J.

1. “As a general rule, the construction of a contract is a question for the court. Where any matter of fact is involved (as the proper reading of an obscurely written word), the jury should find the facts.” Civil Code (1910), § 4265; *Fraser*v. *Jarrett,*153 *Ga.*441, 443 (112 S. E. 487).

2. While it is the duty of the court to construe a written contract, still a new trial will not be granted for failure to discharge this duty where the contract is submitted to the jury and properly construed by them. Especially is this true in a case where, if the contract had been properly construed by the court, the construction would have been adverse to the plaintiff in error and the result would have been the same as reached by the jury in their verdict. *Main*v. *Simmons,*2 *Ga. App.*821 (59 S. E. 85) ; See 4 Cum. Dig. 48.

3. The contract in the present case, which was contained in a letter, was as *25follows: “My client has agreed . . that he will pay to South Georgia Trust Company, on or before the second Monday in July, 1930, to wit, July 14, 1930, the sum of $3550 in full settlement of all claims and demands of every kind whatsoever held by South Georgia Trust Company against John Neal, and in full and complete satisfaction of the suit now pending in favor of South Georgia Trust Company. . . Unless these payments are made-on or before the July term, 1930, of the city court of Albany, you are authorized and directed to take a judgment for the full amount claimed in the said suit now pending in the city court of Albany, Georgia, in favor of South Georgia Trust Company against John Neal. The payment on or before said time to operate as a full and complete satisfaction as aforesaid.” Properly construed, the foregoing contract meant that John Neal had the entire day of July 14, 1930, within which to pay the sum mentioned in the contract.

No. 8492.

December 18, 1931.

4. On the trial of the ease the issue was limited to one of fact as to the meaning and construction of the compromise agreement between the parties settling the prior litigation. On this issue the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. •

5. Applying the foregoing rulings to the facts of this case, the court did not err in any of the rulings complained of in the motion for new trial, on the admission of certain evidence and on the charge of the court; and even if the court should have construed the contract which is the foundation of the suit in the present ease, instead of submitting the question of the proper construction thereof to the jury, the conclusion reached by the jury as to the construction of the contract was correct, and their verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, will not be disturbed.

6. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*28
      *T. TI. Milner,*for plaintiff in error. *W. E. Burt,*contra.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR 515).

Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.

## Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier—Ocean Transportation Intermediary

AA Cargo, 139 Mitchell Avenue, Suite 201, South San Francisco, CA 94080., Officer: Arben Hodza, CEO, CFO, Secretary (Qualifying Individual).

## Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary

Hafen Consolidators USA, LLC, 103-01 NW 108th Avenue, Suite 11, Miami, FL 33178., Officers: Andres E. Valdano, Vice President (Qualifying Individual). Jose R. Hoppe, President.

## Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary

Pacific Glory USA, Inc., 5673 Old Dixie Highway, Suite 102, Forest Park, GA 30297.Officer: Kil Ra, CEO (Qualifying Individual).

Dated: March 5, 2010.

Rachel E. Dickon,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-5100 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
|WELLS FARGO(logo) | Commercial Mortgage ServicingD1050-084, 8th Floor401 South Tryon StreetCharlotte, NC 282021-800-326-1334
|----------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made
to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2015, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor,
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as General Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, as Excluded Mortgage Loan Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, Wilmington Trust, National
Association, as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating
Agent and Custodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C23 (the “Agreement”).
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement,
I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the
Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its
performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based
on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout
the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.



|/s/ Leslie Hayton | 
|----------------- | 



Leslie Hayton

Managing Director

Wells
Fargo Bank



|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | Together we’ll go far
|---------------------- | ---------------------