alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Douglas MacLeod, certify that:

 

1.                                      Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered bythis report on Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2020-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                      Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

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

 

4.                                      Iam responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted inpreparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                      Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance withItem 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 havereasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A.

 

 

 

 

March 27, 2024
§ 38.720 Grants—general. ( a ) *Grants.* VA may award VLGP grants to eligible recipients selected under § 38.730 of this part.
( b ) *Maximum amounts.* The maximum grant amount to be awarded to each grantee and the total maximum amount for all grants will be specified in the annually published NOFA.
( c ) *Number of grants awarded.* The number of grants VA will award will depend on the total amount of grant funding available at VA's discretion and the funding amount awarded to each grantee, which is based on each grantee's proposal.
( d ) *Grant is not a course buyout.* The grant funds shall not be used to substitute a class that an instructor is required to teach during an academic year.
( e ) *Matching requirement.* VA will determine whether a grantee must provide matching funds as a condition of receiving a VLGP grant as set forth in the NOFA.
( f ) *Grant is not Veterans' benefit.* The VLGP grant is not a Veterans' benefit. VA decisions on VLGP applications are final and not subject to the same appeal rights as Veterans' benefits decisions.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(d), 2400 note)
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, Powell and Senior Judge Clements 

WILLIAM JOHN PETERSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1016-09-4 PER CURIAM 

 AUGUST 18, 2009 

WILLIAM PETERSON AND 

 COMPANION PROPERTY & CASUALTY 

 INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (William John Peterson, pro se, on brief). 

 No brief for appellees. 

 William John Peterson appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission 

refusing to assess sanctions against Companion Property & Casualty Insurance Company for its 

denial of diagnostic medical testing. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion 

and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

commission in its final opinion. See Peterson v. William Peterson, VWC File No. 208-42-08 

(Mar. 19, 2009). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
§ 93.317 Retention and custody of the research misconduct proceeding record. ( a ) *Definition of records of research misconduct proceedings.* As used in this section, the term “records of research misconduct proceedings” includes: ( 1 ) The records that the institution secures for the proceeding pursuant to §§ 93.305, 93.307(b) and 93.310(d), except to the extent the institution subsequently determines and documents that those records are not relevant to the proceeding or that the records duplicate other records that are being retained;
( 2 ) The documentation of the determination of irrelevant or duplicate records;
( 3 ) The inquiry report and final documents (not drafts) produced in the course of preparing that report, including the documentation of any decision not to investigate as required by § 93.309(d);
( 4 ) The investigation report and all records (other than drafts of the report) in support of that report, including the recordings or transcriptions of each interview conducted pursuant to § 93.310(g); and
( 5 ) The complete record of any institutional appeal covered by § 93.314.
( b ) *Maintenance of record.* Unless custody has been transferred to HHS under paragraph (c) of this section, or ORI has advised the institution in writing that it no longer needs to retain the records, an institution must maintain records of research misconduct proceedings in a secure manner for 7 years after completion of the proceeding or the completion of any PHS proceeding involving the research misconduct allegation under subparts D and E of this part, whichever is later.
( c ) *Provision for HHS custody.* On request, institutions must transfer custody of or provide copies to HHS, of any institutional record relevant to a research misconduct allegation covered by this part, including the research records and evidence, to perform forensic or other analyses or as otherwise needed to conduct an HHS inquiry or investigation or for ORI to conduct its review or to present evidence in any proceeding under subparts D and E of this part.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                   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 Research
Frontiers Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
M. Harary, President, Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Joseph M. Harary
    Joseph M. Harary
    President, Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
    August 10, 2007
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 32


                            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 Radva Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
19 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 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.



Date:             July 30, 2004

                                                 /s/ Luther I. Dickens
                                                 --------------------------
                                                 Luther I. Dickens
                                                 Chief Executive Officer



Date:             July 30, 2004

                                                 /s/ William F. Fry
                                                 --------------------------
                                                 William F. Fry
                                                 Vice President-
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2515 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 1 (legislative day, MARCH 13), 2008 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To authorize appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation 

to carry out the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program in the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, 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, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

HR 2515 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lower Colorado River 

3 Multi-Species Conservation Program Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

5 In this Act: 

6 (1) LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES

7 CONSERVATION PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘Lower Colo8 rado River Multi-Species Conservation Program’’ or 

9 ‘‘LCR MSCP’’ means the cooperative effort on the 

10 Lower Colorado River between Federal and non11 Federal entities in Arizona, California, and Nevada 

12 approved by the Secretary of the Interior on April 

13 2, 2005. 

14 (2) LOWER COLORADO RIVER.—The term 

15 ‘‘Lower Colorado River’’ means the Colorado River 

16 from Lake Mead to the Southerly International 

17 Boundary with Mexico, including its historic flood18 plain and its mainstem reservoirs to their full pool 

19 elevations. 

20 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

21 the Secretary of the Interior. 

22 (4) STATES.—The term ‘‘States’’ means each of 

23 the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

HR 2515 RFS

1 SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION AND WATER ACCOUNTING. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to 

3 participate in the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

4 Conservation Program. 

5 (b) WATER ACCOUNTING.—The Secretary is author6 ized to enter into an agreement with the States providing 

7 for the use of water from the Lower Colorado River for 

8 habitat creation and maintenance. 

9 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appro11 priated to the Secretary such sums as may be necessary 

12 to participate in the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

13 Conservation Program, to remain available until expended. 

14 (b) NONREIMBURSABLE AND NONRETURNABLE.—All 

15 amounts appropriated to and expended by the Secretary 

16 for the LCR MSCP shall be nonreimbursable and non17 returnable. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 31, 

2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
IN THE 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

OF TEXAS 

 

JAMES SMITH §

 §

 Petitioner §

 § 

VS §

 §

THE STATE OF TEXAS §

§

Appellee §

 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW 

 

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

NO. 11-12-00095-CR

 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

 Now comes James Smith, appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, and moves 

for an extension of time of 45 days to file a Petition for Discretionary Review, and for good 

cause shows the following: 

1. The deadline for filing a Petition for Discretionary Review is April 10, 2015.

2. The length of the extension sought is 45 days. 

3. No previous extensions have been requested. 

4. Counsel for petitioner has been preparing a brief for Jonathan Sanchez vs. State of 

Texas; Court of Appeal No. 11-14-00290-CR. Further, counsel for petitioner has been involved 

PD-0405-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/10/2015 11:40:08 AM

Accepted 4/15/2015 3:39:16 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
in the preparation of a jury trial, Cause No. 7505, entitled State of Texas v. Jeremy Wade Grimes 

which is set to begin on April 14, 2015. Counsel for petitioner was involved in the preparation 

and jury trial, State of Texas vs. Narada Norman; Cause No. 11149-D in the 350th Judicial 

District of Taylor County which began on March 16, 2015.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, petitioner respectfully requests an 

extension of 45 days, i.e. until May 25, 2015, to file a Petition for Discretionary Review.

Respectfully submitted,

Parker & Blizzard, P.L.L.C.

702-C Hickory

Abilene, TX 79601

Tel: (325) 480-2903

Fax: (866) 651-2320

By:/s/ Jacob Blizzard

Jacob Blizzard

State Bar No. 24068558

Attorney for James Smith

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on April 10, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above and 

foregoing document was served on the Taylor County District Attorney's Office, Taylor County, 

Texas, by facsimile transmission to 325-674-1306.

/s/ Jacob Blizzard

Jacob Blizzard
IN THE 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

JAMES SMITH §

§

Petitioner §

§

VS §

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS §

§

Appellee §

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

NO. 11-12-00095-CR

ORDER FOR A SETTING

On , 2015, the Defendant filed a Motion to Extend Time to File 

Brief in Support of Petition for Discretionary Review. The Court finds that the party is entitled 

to a hearing on this matter, and it is THEREFORE ORDERED that a hearing on this motion is 

set for , at .

Signed on .

JUDGE PRESIDING
IN THE 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

JAMES SMITH §

§

Petitioner §

§

VS §

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS §

§

Appellee §

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

NO. 11-12-00095-CR

O R D E R

On , 2015, came on to be considered James Smith's Motion to 

Extend Time to File Brief in Support of Petition for Discretionary Review, and said motion is 

hereby

(Granted) (Denied)

JUDGE PRESIDING
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 Alpharma Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 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 result of operations of the Company.



Dated:   April 13, 2005



/s/ Ingrid Wiid
Ingrid Wiik
President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  April 13, 2005



/s/ Matthew Farrell
Matthew Farrell 
Chief Financial 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 Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 27, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Mintz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 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 result of operations of the
Company.



/s/David Mintz*
--------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
Date:  November 12, 2008


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL 7 ASSOCIATION AS SUCCESSOR 8 BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK 9 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS 10 TRUSTEE FOR THE C-BASS 11 MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED 12 CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-SP1, 13 Plaintiff-Appellee, 14 v. NO. 30,808 15 MUKHTIAR S. KHALSA, 16 Defendant-Appellant, 17 and 18 GURNAM KHALSA, JP MORGAN, CHASE 19 BANK, N.A., and UNKNOWN TENANT 20 (REAL NAME UNKNOWN), 21 Defendants. 22 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 23 Barbara J. Vigil, District Judge 24 Little & Dranttel, P.C. 25 Elizabeth Dranttel 26 Albuquerque, NM 27 for Appellee 282 Mukhtiar S. Khalsa 1 Santa Cruz, NM 2 Pro Se Appellant 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION 4 KENNEDY, Judge. 5 Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the calendar notice. 6 No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has been filed, and the time for doing 7 so has expired. DISMISSED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

10 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 11 WE CONCUR: 12

13 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 14

15 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 16
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 Alpharma Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 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 result of operations of the Company.
June 6, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

HARVEST LIFE FOUNDAT ION, FKA OPERATION R EACH COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT ION , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 01038

- CV V.

HARRIS COUNTY APPRAI SAL DISTRICT , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the portion of the judgment , signed September 1, 2011, in favor of appellee, Harris County Appraisal District , was heard on the transcr ipt of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Harvest Life Foundation, fka Operation Reach Community Development Corporation, to pay all costs in curred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 4.4

                  PAYMENT AGREEMENT WITH FIDELITY TRANSFER CO.


                            Fidelity Transfer company
                        1800 South West Temple, suite 301
                           Salt Lake City, Utah 84115
                                  801-484-7222
                                Fax 801-466-4122

                               September 15, 2001

Covingham Capital Corp.
Covingham Capital Corp
174 Dorchester Drive
Salt Lake City, Ut 84103


This is confirm our telephone conversation regard payment for services. I agree
to accept 10,000 shares of common stock a payment for services rendered.


Yours truly,


/s/ Kevin Kopaunik, Preident
Fidelity Transfer company
Customer Satisfaction

TO BE COMPLETED BY AT PROGRAM STAFF

 ID (optional) ____________

 Services provided:

 Device demonstration

 Device loan

 “State financing” services—including financial loan, assistance in accessing funds for AT 

devices/services, assistance in obtaining AT devices and services at reduced cost or 

free, or other related services

 Device reutilization— received an AT device through a device exchange or recycling 

program

 Date service delivery was completed: __________

 Date this form was received: ____________________

1. Which of the following best reflects your level of satisfaction with the services 

you received? 

(Check one.)

_____ Highly satisfied

_____ Satisfied

_____ Satisfied somewhat

_____ Not at all satisfied

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information 

unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 2.5 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The 

obligation to respond to this collection is required under the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended, to retain 

benefit of the State Grant for AT Program. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20210-4537 or email ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control 

Number 1820-0572.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1230 

CAF 13-00876 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF MARY L. KESSLER, PETITIONER, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SCOTT M. FANCHER, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

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

SCOTT A. OTIS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, 

APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 5.) 

 

SCOTT A. OTIS, WATERTOWN, APPELLANT PRO SE. 

MARY L. KESSLER, PETITIONER PRO SE.

SCOTT M. FANCHER, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT PRO SE. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Peter

A. Schwerzmann, A.J.), entered September 11, 2012 in a proceeding

pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order dismissed the

petition for an order of protection. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Matter of Kessler v Fancher ([appeal No. 2]

___ AD3d ___ [Dec. 27, 2013]). 

Entered: December 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court