alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: July 24, 2014 105519

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GARY L. McGREGOR, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: June 2, 2014 Before: Stein, J.P., McCarthy, Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________ John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant. Alexander Lesyk, Special Prosecutor, Norwood, for respondent.

__________ McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered September 21, 2012, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment. In 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to a five-year term of probation. In May 2012, a declaration of delinquency was filed and, following a hearing, defendant's probation was continued to allow him to participate in a treatment program. Subsequently, an amended declaration of delinquency was filed against defendant in September 2012, and he pleaded guilty to violating his probation by failing to comply with treatment, consuming alcohol and operating a motor vehicle. In exchange for his plea, County Court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 14 to 42 months and-2- 105519

a three-year conditional discharge requiring him to install an ignition interlock device. Defendant now appeals. We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved for review inasmuch as the record fails to indicate that he moved to withdraw his plea of guilty to the probation violation (see People v Secore, 102 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; People v Cogswell, 94 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 958 [2012]). Moreover, defendant made no statements during his plea allocution that were inconsistent with his guilt or that cast doubt on the voluntariness of his plea, so the exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable (see People v Secore, 102 AD3d at 1058; People v Lewis, 69 AD3d 1232, 1234 [2010]). We reject defendant's contention that his sentence was harsh and excessive. Given his repeated inability to comply with the terms of his probation that afforded him the opportunity to avoid a prison term, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of his sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Riley, 97 AD3d 982, 983 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012]; People v Dowling, 92 AD3d 1034, 1035 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 993 [2012]). We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Stein, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
79–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–490

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1838, THE

TAIWAN SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT

JANUARY 31, 2000.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 408]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 408, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 1838, the

Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, under a modified closed rule.

The rule provides one hour of debate in the House divided equally

between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the

bill. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read for

amendment. The rule further provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on International Relations now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The rule provides for

consideration of the amendment printed in the Congressional

Record, if offered by the Minority Leader or a designee, which shall

be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for one

hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill

includes a waiver of clause 3 of Rule XIII (requiring the inclusion

in the report of a CBO cost estimate) because the report accompanying the bill (H. Rept. 106–423, Part 1) did not include that cost

estimate.

Æ
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2895

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend bonus depreciation 

for 2 years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2003

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

bonus depreciation for 2 years.

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 ‘‘Bonus Depreciation 

5 Extension Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. 2-YEAR EXTENSION OF BONUS DEPRECIATION. 

7 (a) 50-PERCENT BONUS DEPRECIATION.—Section 

8 168(k)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as 

9 amended by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconcili10 ation Act of 2003) is amended by striking ‘‘January 1, 
2

•HR 2895 IH 

1 2005’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘January 1, 

2 2007’’. 

3 (b) 30-PERCENT BONUS DEPRECIATION.—Section 

4 168(k)(2) of such Code (as so amended) is amended by 

5 striking ‘‘January 1, 2005’’ each place it appears and in6 serting ‘‘January 1, 2007’’. 

7 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The subsection 

8 heading for section 168(k) of such Code (as so amended) 

9 is amended by striking ‘‘JANUARY 1, 2005’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘JANUARY 1, 2007’’.

Æ
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 130294 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 130294 COA: 256441 Oakland CC: 2003-188385-FH RICHARD ALLEN WOLFE, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to a ppeal the December 1, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0522 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2006

Clerk
#### § 1203.2 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Adjudicative officer* means the official who presided at the underlying adversary adjudication, without regard to whether the official is designated as a hearing examiner, administrative law judge, administrative judge, or otherwise.

*Adversary adjudication* means an administrative proceeding conducted by FHFA under 5 U.S.C. 554 in which the position of FHFA or any other agency of the United States is represented by counsel or otherwise, including but not limited to an adjudication conducted under the Safety and Soundness Act, as amended, and any implementing regulations. Any issue as to whether an administrative proceeding is an adversary adjudication for purposes of this part will be an issue for resolution in the proceeding on the application for award.

*Affiliate* means an individual, corporation, or other entity that directly or indirectly controls or owns a majority of the voting shares or other interests of the party, or any corporation or other entity of which the party directly or indirectly owns or controls a majority of the voting shares or other interest, unless the adjudicative officer determines that it would be unjust and contrary to the purpose of the Equal Access to Justice Act in light of the actual relationship between the affiliated entities to consider them to be affiliates for purposes of this part.

*Agency counsel* means the attorney or attorneys designated by the General Counsel of FHFA to represent FHFA in an adversary adjudication covered by this part.

*Demand of FHFA* means the express demand of FHFA that led to the adversary adjudication, but does not include a recitation by FHFA of the maximum statutory penalty when accompanied by an express demand for a lesser amount.

*Director* means the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

*Fees and other expenses* means reasonable attorney or agent fees, the reasonable expenses of expert witnesses, and the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, or test, which the agency finds necessary for the preparation of the eligible party's case.

*FHFA* means the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

*Final disposition date* means the date on which a decision or order disposing of the merits of the adversary adjudication or any other complete resolution of the adversary adjudication, such as a settlement or voluntary dismissal, becomes final and unappealable, both within the agency and to the courts.

*Party* means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization that is named or admitted as a party, that is admitted as a party for limited purposes, or that is properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted as a party in an adversary adjudication.

*Position of FHFA* means the position taken by FHFA in the adversary adjudication, including the action or failure to act by FHFA upon which the adversary adjudication was based.
```

                      BERNARD CHAUS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                               BERNARD CHAUS, INC.
                            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 Bernard Chaus, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

o    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

May 12, 2006

                                       /s/ Josephine Chaus
                                       -------------------------------
                                       Josephine Chaus
                                       Chairwoman of the Board and
                                       Chief Executive Officer
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              59,098
<SECURITIES>                                       228,652
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,372,320
<ALLOWANCES>                                       662,000
<INVENTORY>                                      5,214,917
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,676,181
<PP&E>                                           1,919,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                     681,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,069,743
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,940,114
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            46,995
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,027,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,069,743
<SALES>                                         16,952,904
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,952,904
<CGS>                                           14,061,034
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,582,723
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   935,848
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,389,221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,626,701)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (244,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,575,882)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (1.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (1.37)
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1


    Deloitte & Touche LLP
    333 Clay Street
    Suite 2300
    Houston, Texas 77002

    February 13, 2002

    Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc.
    1200 Smith Street, Suite 1900
    Houston, Texas 77002

    We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
    American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim
    financial information of Sterling Chemicals Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries
    (the "Company") for the three-month periods ended December 31, 2001 and
    2000, as indicated in our report dated February 13, 2002; because we did not
    perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

    We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
    Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2001, is
    incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-30917 for the
    Company on Form S-3 and in Registration Statement No. 333-52795 for the
    Company on Form S-8.

    We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
    under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the
    Registration Statements prepared or certified by an accountant or a report
    prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and
    11 of that Act.



    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
#### §§ 1240.53-1240.60 [Reserved]
Exhibit 10.25  Description of Terms of 2015 Annual LTIP Awards




EXHIBIT 10.25




DESCRIPTION OF TERMS OF 2015 ANNUAL LTIP AWARDS




The description of the performance criteria and other terms of the 2015 annual LTIP units awards for the executive officers of Washington Prime Group Inc. (the “Company”) is incorporated herein by reference to the Company’s Form 8-K filed on April 2, 2015.  In addition to the dollar amount of 2015 annual LTIP unit awards (as a multiple of 2015 annual base salary) at maximum for each of the Company’s named executive officers, its principal executive officer and its principal financial officer, which also are described in and incorporated herein by reference to the Form 8-K, the dollar amount of 2015 annual LTIP unit awards at maximum for the Company’s two other executive officers is as follows:  Executive Vice President – Legal and Compliance – $375,000 (100% of 2015 annual base salary), and Chief Accounting Officer and Senior Vice President – Finance –  $213,750 (75% of 2015 annual base salary).  The maximum number of 2015 annual LTIP units that can be earned by each individual will be determined by dividing such dollar amount by the average trading price of the Company’s common shares during the last 15 trading days of 2015.  The number of earned units will depend on the achievement of the performance criteria described in the Form 8-K.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99.1

                      FORM OF ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

(To be delivered on or before March 31 of each calendar year beginning with
March 31, 2003, pursuant to Section 3.05 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
referred to below)

                            CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA
                   ------------------------------------------

                             CHASE USA MASTER TRUST
                   (formerly known as Providian Master Trust)
                    ------------------------------------------


         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Chase Manhattan
Bank USA, National Association, as Servicer ("Chase USA"), pursuant to the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 1993, as amended and
restated as of February 5, 2002 (as amended and supplemented, the "Agreement"),
among Card Acquisition Funding LLC as Transferor, Chase USA, as Servicer, and
The Bank of New York, as Trustee, does hereby certify that:

1.       Chase USA is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.
         Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respective
         meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

2.       The undersigned is a servicing officer who is duly authorized pursuant
         to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the
         Trustee.

3.       A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year
         ended December 31, 2002, and of its performance under the Agreement was
         conducted under my supervision.

4.       Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge,
         performed in all material respects its obligations under the Agreement
         throughout such year and no default in the performance of such
         obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth in
         paragraph 5 below.

5.       The following is a description of each default in the performance of
         the Servicer's obligations under the provisions of the Agreement known
         to me to have been made by the Servicer during the year ended December
         31, 2002, which sets forth in detail (a) the nature of each such
         default, (b) the action taken by the Servicer, if any to remedy each
         such default and (c) the current status of each such default: NONE


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate
this 28th day of March, 2003.


                                              CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, NATIONAL
                                              ASSOCIATION, as Servicer,

                                              By: /s/ Patricia Garvey
                                                  --------------------------
                                              Name: Patricia Garvey
                                              Title: Vice President
**
**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 Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2021-1 (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany 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, 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: WilmingtonTrust, National Association. 

 
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**
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 9 -00 695 -CR
Jo hn Ell is , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-09 -30 1521 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES F . BAI RD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N App e ll an t Jo h n E ll is s e e k s to a p p e a l a ju d g me n t o f c o n v ic ti o n f o r d e li v e r y o f a controlled substanc e. The trial court ha s cer tified that Ellis waived his rig ht of appe al. A waiver of the rig ht to appeal that is fr eely an d voluntarily made is binding upon the appe llant. Monreal
v . S tate , 99 S.W .3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The appea l is dism issed. SeeTex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)( 2), (d)
.

_________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: January

27, 2010 Do Not Publish