alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(a)  A review of Exeter
        Finance LLC’s activities and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 31, 2020 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Exeter Holdings Trust 2020-3, EFCAR, LLC, Exeter Finance LLC, as servicer (in such
        capacity, the “Servicer”), Exeter Automobile Receivables Trust 2020-3, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as indenture trustee and backup servicer, during the year ended December 31, 2022 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 Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
 
  
 By:  /s/ Ben Miller
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Parkway Properties, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q forthe period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven G. Rogers,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

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

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

| /s/ Steven G. Rogers

Steven G. Rogers (*)

President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

November 7, 2007

 

 

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ParkwayProperties, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1957 

To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing in the North Aleutian Basin 

Planning Area, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2007 

Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mr. GILCHREST, and Mr. HINCHEY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing in the North 

Aleutian Basin Planning Area, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Bristol Bay Protection 

5 Act’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1957 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CER2 TAIN AREA OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL 

3 SHELF. 

4 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

5 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(q) PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN

8 CERTAIN AREAOF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

10 provision of this Act or any other law and except as 

11 provided in paragraph (2), beginning on the date of 

12 enactment of this subsection, the conduct of oil and 

13 gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities is pro14 hibited in areas of the outer Continental Shelf lo15 cated in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area. 

16 ‘‘(2) EFFECT.—Nothing in this subsection af17 fects any rights under leases issued under this Act 

18 before the date of enactment of this subsection.’’. 

19 SEC. 3. EXCLUSION FROM COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF 

20 OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND NAT21 URAL GAS RESOURCES. 

22 Section 357(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 

23 U.S.C. 15912(a)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘Conti24 nental Shelf’’ the following: ‘‘(other than the North Aleumstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 1957 IH

1 tian Basin Planning Area referred to in section 8(q)(1) 

2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act)’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
* Judge Murnaghan was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (1994). ON PETITION FOR REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6700

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY TATE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-97-38-H, CA-99-437-5-H) Submitted: May 24, 2001 Decided: June 11, 2001 Before MURNAGHAN, * WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Tate, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.* We previously granted Tate’s petition for rehearing and placed his appeal in abeyance for United States v. Jones , No. 00- 7249. We recently held, however, in United States v. Sanders , 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001), that the new rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, the Apprendi claim Tate asserted for the first time in his letter pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) is not cognizable. We therefore remove this appeal from abeyance because we conclude Sanders is dispositive of Tate’s Apprendi claim. 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Jeffrey Tate seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Tate, Nos. CR-97-38-H; CA-99-437-5-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 14, 2000). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DONNA P. BECKNAULD,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 78 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25th day of July, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      2,655,800
<SECURITIES>                                1,200,600         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  23,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            3,856,400 
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              3,886,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         233,900
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                  3,642,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                3,886,800
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              135,900
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  22,500 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              211,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (97,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (97,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                 (97,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.61)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 353.4 Filing deadline.

A motion for rehearing must be filed within 15 days after the date on which the Copyright Royalty Judges issue an initial determination.

[71 FR 53330, Sept. 11, 2006]
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                                                    ------------
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Sidney C. Hooper, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sutron Corporation;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
     prepared;

     b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of the end of the period (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

     a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
     internal control over financial reporting.

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

/s/ Sidney C. Hooper
-------------------------------------
Sidney C. Hooper
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
Date: August 13, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48923-48927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22948]



[[Page 48923]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 09-47]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 09-47 with attached transmittal, and 
policy justification.

    Dated: September 15, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

[[Page 48924]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.003


[[Page 48925]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.004


[[Page 48926]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25SE09.005


[[Page 48927]]


[FR Doc. E9-22948 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2020-4 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofNovember 24, 2020, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2020-4 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the“Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: 
/s/ Marc Womack
Name: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2022By: 
/s/ Erik Laney
Name: Erik LaneyTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2022**
Docket Number FAA-2012-0639

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?
§ 1.580 Administrative review. ( a ) Upon consideration and denial of a request under § 1.577 or § 1.579 of this part, the responsible VA official or designated employee will inform the requester *in writing* of the denial. The adverse determination notice must be signed by the component head or the component's Privacy Officer, and shall include the following: ( 1 ) The name and title or position of the person responsible for the adverse determination;
( 2 ) A brief statement of the reason(s) for the denial and the policy upon which the denial is based; and
( 3 ) Notice that the requester may appeal the adverse determination under paragraph (b) of this section to the Office of General Counsel (providing the address as follows: Office of General Counsel (024), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420), and instructions on what information is required for an appeal, which includes why the individual disagrees with the initial denial with specific attention to one or more of the four standards (*e.g.,* accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness), and a copy of the denial letter and any supporting documentation that demonstrates why the individual believes the information does not meet these requirements.
( b ) The final agency decision in appeals of adverse determinations described in paragraph (a) of this section will be made by the designated official within the Office of General Counsel (024).
( c ) A written denial must have occurred to appeal to OGC. The absence of a response to an access *or* amendment request filed with a VA component is *not* a denial. If an individual has not received a response to a request for access to or amendment of records, the individual must pursue the request with the Privacy Officer of the administration office (*e.g.,* the VHA, VBA, or National Cemetery Administration Privacy Officer) or staff office (*e.g.,* the Office of Information Technology or Office of Inspector General Privacy Staff Officer) that has custody over the records.
[84 FR 12130, Apr. 1, 2019]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.1066 Correspondence address for a nonprovisional international design application.

(a) Unless the correspondence address is changed in accordance with § 1.33(a), the Office will use as the correspondence address in a nonprovisional international design application the address according to the following order:

(1) The correspondence address under § 1.1042;

(2) The address of applicant's representative identified in the publication of the international registration; and

(3) The address of the applicant identified in the publication of the international registration.

(b) Reference in the rules to the correspondence address set forth in § 1.33(a) shall be construed to include a reference to this section for a nonprovisional international design application.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
Searched for **http://www.nmb.gov/services/representation/determinations/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.nmb.gov/services/representation/determinations/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
§ 16.115 IRB Records. ( a ) An institution, or when appropriate an IRB, shall prepare and maintain adequate documentation of IRB activities, including the following: ( 1 ) Copies of all research proposals reviewed, scientific evaluations, if any, that accompany the proposals, approved sample consent forms, progress reports submitted by investigators, and reports of injuries to subjects.
( 2 ) Minutes of IRB meetings, which shall be in sufficient detail to show attendance at the meetings; actions taken by the IRB; the vote on these actions including the number of members voting for, against, and abstaining; the basis for requiring changes in or disapproving research; and a written summary of the discussion of controverted issues and their resolution.
( 3 ) Records of continuing review activities, including the rationale for conducting continuing review of research that otherwise would not require continuing review as described in § 16.109(f)(1).
( 4 ) Copies of all correspondence between the IRB and the investigators.
( 5 ) A list of IRB members in the same detail as described in § 16.108(a)(2).
( 6 ) Written procedures for the IRB in the same detail as described in § 16.108(a)(3) and (4).
( 7 ) Statements of significant new findings provided to subjects, as required by § 16.116(c)(5).
( 8 ) The rationale for an expedited reviewer's determination under § 16.110(b)(1)(i) that research appearing on the expedited review list described in § 16.110(a) is more than minimal risk.
( 9 ) Documentation specifying the responsibilities that an institution and an organization operating an IRB each will undertake to ensure compliance with the requirements of this policy, as described in § 16.103(e).
( b ) The records required by this policy shall be retained for at least 3 years, and records relating to research that is conducted shall be retained for at least 3 years after completion of the research. The institution or IRB may maintain the records in printed form, or electronically. All records shall be accessible for inspection and copying by authorized representatives of the Federal department or agency at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 10, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00870-CV

ZELENI GRISSMORE, Appellant

V.

TARGET CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-CV-1424

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 21, 2013. The notice of 

appeal was filed October 24, 2013. To date, our records show that appellant has 

not paid the appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees 

in civil cases unless indigent); Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for 

establishing indigence); see also; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. ' 51.207. 
2

On November 14, 2013, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate 

filing fee on or before December 2, 2013, or the appeal would be dismissed. 

Appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered 

dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case 

because appellant has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or 

other action within specified time). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Brown.