alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10378

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PABLO GUERRERO-RIVERA, also known as Pablo Eleazar Guerrero,

also known as Pablo Eleazar Rivera, also known as Pablo

Robert Guerrero, also known as Pablo Guerrero,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-301-ALL-A

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Pablo Guerrero-Rivera has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Guerrero-Rivera has

not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and

the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel
No. 04-10378

-2-

is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL

IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
§ 17.1540 Claims processing system. ( a ) There is established within the Chief Business Office of the Veterans Health Administration a nationwide claims processing system for processing and paying bills or claims for authorized hospital care and medical services furnished to eligible veterans under §§ 17.1500 through 17.1540.
( b ) The Chief Business Office is responsible for overseeing the implementation and maintenance of such system.
( c ) The claims processing system will receive requests for payment from eligible entities and providers for hospital care or medical services furnished to eligible veterans. The claims processing system will provide accurate, timely payments for claims received in accordance with §§ 17.1500 through 17.1540.
(Authority: Secs. 101, 105, Pub. L. 113-146, 128 Stat. 1754)
Exhibit
        32.1



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 QMed, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form
        10-Q for the quarter ended August 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission (the “Report”), Jane A. Murray, Chief Executive Officer of the
        Company and William T. Schmitt, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively,
        do each hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
        § 1350), that to his 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/Jane A. Murray

Jane A.
        Murray

Chief
        Executive Officer

October 5,
        2007





/s/ William T. Schmitt, Jr.

William T.
        Schmitt, Jr.

Chief
        Financial OfficerOctober 5, 2007



[A
        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
        QMed, Inc. and will be retained by QMed Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
        Commission or its staff upon request.]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TOBIE J. MAGEE

, Appellant,

v.

SEMINOLE TRIBE CLASSIC CASINO and

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 17

- 2139

[ September 6, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Martin J. Bidwill , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE17

- 002052

(05)

.

Tobie J. Magee, Hollywood, pro se.

Mark D. Schellhase of GrayRobinson, P.A., Boca Raton, and Alissa M.

Ellison of GrayRobinson, P.A., Tampa, for app ellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

D AMOORGIAN

, C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 35.2



Servicer Compliance Statement of Deere Credit Services, Inc.



I, Steven N. Owenson, Senior Vice President and Finance Director of
Deere Credit Services, Inc., state:



A review of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s activities for
the period from November 2, 2020 through October 31, 2021 (the “Reporting Period”) and of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s
performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 22, 2020 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables
LLC and John Deere Owner Trust 2020-B has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, Deere
Credit Services, Inc. has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting
Period.







|Date: January 10, 2022 |     | Deere Credit Services, Inc.               
|---------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------
|                       |     |                                           
|                       |     |                                           
|                       | By: | /s/ Steven N. Owenson                     
|                       |     | Steven N. Owenson                         
|                       |     | Senior Vice President and Finance Director
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23016]



[[Page 48617]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting.

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold an Open 
Meeting on Monday, October 5, 2009, in the Multipurpose Room, L-006. 
The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and will be open to the public, with 
seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 8:30 
a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks.
    On September 15, 2009, the Commission issued notice of the 
Committee meeting (Release No. 33-9064), indicating that the meeting is 
open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments 
to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a 
majority of the Commission may attend the meeting. The agenda for the 
meeting includes: (i) A presentation by SEC staff of potential 
Commission initiatives; (ii) description of the composition and purpose 
of the Committee's subcommittees; (iii) consideration of a Committee 
recusal policy; (iv) reports from the Committee's subcommittees; and 
(v) discussion of next steps for the Committee, including regarding SEC 
resources.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary 
at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 21, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23016 Filed 9-21-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P
§ 1.560 Maintenance and preservation of records. ( a ) Each component will preserve all correspondence pertaining to FOIA requests as well as copies of pertinent records, until disposition is authorized under title 44, U.S.C., or the National Archives and Records Administration's General Records Schedule 14.
( b ) The FOIA Officer must maintain copies of records that are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA. A copy of all records shall be provided promptly to the Office of the General Counsel upon request.
[76 FR 51895, Aug. 19, 2011]
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 July 22, 2020 (the “Agreement”) and Item
1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2020-2 (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, 2021 through December 31, 2021, 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                      
|                                     | Connie Coffey                          
|                                     | Executive Vice President, Corporate    
|                                     | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sentex Sensing Technology, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert S. Kendall, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
2002, that:



| | 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 results of
operations of the Company.

/s/ Robert S. Kendall

Robert S. Kendall
Chief Executive Officer
October 13, 2003

12
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, CoreyHenry, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2020-4(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain 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 thisreport; 

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

4. Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement inall material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included inthis report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells FargoBank, N.A. and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. 

 
By: /s/ Corey HenryName: Corey HenryTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date: March 31, 2023**
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.83

                                  NELNET, INC.
                             SHARE RETENTION POLICY

1.       COVERED OFFICERS

                  This Nelnet, Inc. Share Retention Policy applies to all of the
officers of Nelnet, Inc. ("Nelnet") or any of its direct or indirect
subsidiaries who are at or above the level of executive director (the "Covered
Officers").

2.       SHARE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS

                  No Covered Officer may sell or dispose of a number of shares
of Nelnet common stock in any calendar year in excess of one-third of the number
of shares of Nelnet common stock beneficially owned by the Covered Officer on
the first day of the calendar year. The share retention requirements under this
policy apply to Covered Officers during and following their employment by
Nelnet; provided, however, that after five years from the closing date of
Nelnet's initial public offering, Covered Officers will be free to sell or
otherwise dispose of all or any of their shares of Nelnet common stock.

3.       EXCEPTIONS

                  The following exceptions apply to the Share Retention Policy
set forth above:

                           (a)      Transfers to family members and family-owned
                  partnerships or other family-owned entities will not be
                  prohibited, so long as such transfers are effected only for
                  estate planning purposes and the transferee(s) agrees to
                  comply with this Share Retention Policy (treating the
                  transferee(s) as the transferring Covered Officer).

                           (b)      Any Covered Officer may sell or otherwise
                  dispose of up to $500,000 in value of shares of Nelnet common
                  stock during any calendar year.

<PAGE>

                                      -2-

                           (c)      All restrictions under the Share Retention
                  Policy shall cease in the event of the death or retirement at
                  normal retirement age of a Covered Officer. For this purpose
                  normal retirement age means age 65.

<PAGE>

                                      -3-

                          ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND AGREEMENT

                  I hereby acknowledge that I have read and understand this
Nelnet, Inc. Share Retention Policy, and I hereby agree to be bound by such
policy both during my employment with Nelnet and following my employment, in
accordance with the terms set forth above.

                                    ____________________________________________
                                    Signature

                                    ____________________________________________
                                    Printed Name

                                    ____________________________________________
                                    Date
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6467

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TREVOR LITTLE, a/k/a Tragedy, a/k/a Trag,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, 

District Judge. (2:95-cr-00198-2; 2:10-cv-00978)

Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trevor Little, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Loew, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Trevor Little seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion, and denying his motion for an evidentiary 

hearing. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Little has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 
3

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Maryon M. Rice *v.*Edward J. Rice

Maltbie, C. X, Brown, Jennings, Ells and Dickenson, Js.

Argued May 7

decided June 4, 1948

*Joseph M. Navin,*for the appellant (defendant).

*A. Henry Weisman,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

In this appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in a divorce action, the sole attack of the defendant is upon the finding and the conclusions of the trial court drawn therefrom. The defendant seeks to have his draft finding substituted for the finding. The draft finding, with few exceptions, depends for its support as to material facts upon the defendant’s own testimony, the only evidence offered by him, which the trial court apparently did not find worthy of belief. We add to the finding, however, the admitted fact that the plaintiff continued to live in the same house with the defendant after this action was commenced, to the time of trial, although in separate rooms, and that during this period they did not live as man and wife, their rela*659tions were strained and unpleasant and the plaintiff asked the defendant to leave the house, which he refused to do.

•The parties were married June 30, 1937. The action was returned to court in September, 1946. Between these dates the plaintiff had borne four children. She had chronic asthma which pregnancy aggravated and which in addition brought about a sciatic condition. The defendant accused her of shamming and now claims he did not know of her ill health. If true, it is not important. His treatment was such as the court might well have found a woman even in good health would not be bound to endure. He drank to excess, assaulted and abused his wife on numerous occasions, put her out of the house, threatened her life and humiliated her in the presence of others. The fact, without more, that the parties continued to live in the same house pending the decision of the divorce action is not conclusive but would at most afford the basis for an inference that the defendant was not guilty of intolerable cruelty. See *Steinmann*v. *Steinmann,*121 Conn. 498, 502, 186 A. 501. We cannot hold unreasonable the conclusion of the trial court that the plaintiff had established a sufficient cause for judgment in her favor.

There is no error.
#### § 21.5070 Entitlement.

A participant is entitled to a monthly benefit for periods of time during which the individual is enrolled in, and satisfactorily pursuing, an approved program of education. The amount of the benefit will vary from individual to individual and, in some instances, from month to month as provided in § 21.5138.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3231)
§ 20.303 Rule 303. Appeals with no request for a Board hearing, but with a request for submission of additional evidence. For appeals in which the appellant requested, on the Notice of Disagreement, an opportunity to submit additional evidence without a Board hearing, the Board's decision will be based on a review of the following: ( a ) Evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction's decision on the issue or issues on appeal; and
( b ) Evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative: ( 1 ) With the Notice of Disagreement or within 90 days following receipt of the Notice of Disagreement; or,
( 2 ) If the appellant did not request an opportunity to submit additional evidence on the Notice of Disagreement, but subsequently requested to submit additional evidence pursuant to Rule 202 (§ 20.202(c)(2)(ii)), within 90 days following VA's notice that the appeal has been moved to the docket described in § 20.800(a)(ii).
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105, 7107, 7113(c))
[84 FR 182, Jan. 18, 2019; 84 FR 34788, July 19, 2019]