alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.2

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-1 for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2016 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer International Puerto Rico LLC (the Subservicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Subservicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 17, 2016, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc.,
Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-1 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 Subservicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER INTERNATIONAL PUERTO RICO LLCBy:

/s/ Troy MillerName:

Troy MillerTitle:

PresidentDate:

March 30, 2017
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 10

- 00347

- CR No. 10

- 10

- 00348

- CR

TODD PHILLIPPI , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the County Court at Law Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No s . 05

- C

- 3702 and 05

- C

- 3707

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The briefs in these appeals were originally due to be filed by February 4, 2011.
When no briefs were filed, a late brief notice was sent to appellant, Todd Phillippi, on February 15, 2011. Twenty days later, Phillippi’s motion for extension of time to file h is briefs was filed. The Court granted an extension of time to file the briefs to June 20,
2011. No briefs were filed for Phillippi.
By letter dated June 30, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified Phillippi that
pursuant to Rules 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3 of t he Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, thePhil l ippi v. State Page 2

Court would dismiss these appeals for want of prosecution unless, within 21 days of the
date of the letter, a brief was filed in each of these appeals. Phillippi was further
warned that if no briefs were filed by 5:00 p.m. on July 21, 2011, these appeals would be

dismissed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(b). No briefs were filed by the 5:00 p.m. deadline.
Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Dav is, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed August 3, 2011 Do not publish [CV06]
January 5, 1939

No. 40359.

#### Protest 963359-G of Schenley Import Corp.

Abstract 40206. Application by plaintiff for rehearing granted.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 192
Robert Williamson, Petitioner and Appellant

v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20220186
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable James S. Hill , Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED

. Per Curiam

. Scott O. Diamond, Fargo, ND , for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.
Julie A. Lawyer, State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND , for respondent and appellee; submitte d on brief.1 Williamson v. State No. 20220186 Per Curiam

. [¶1] Robert Williamson appeals from an order denying his application for post

- conviction relief. Williamson argues the district court erred by dismissing his application, on its own motion, after the State filed an answer. We conclude the district court erred by denying Williamson’s application because the procedure required under N.D.C.C. § 29

- 32.1

- 09 for summary disposition in post

- conviction relief cases was not followed. See Chase v. Sta te , 2021 ND 206, ¶¶ 8

- 11, 966 N.W.2d 557 (holding a motion for summary disposition in post

conviction relief proceedings must be made consistent with the rules for motion practice and the district court may not order summary disposition in response to a request in a pleading); State v. V ogt , 2019 ND 236, ¶ 8, 933 N.W.2d 916 (stating the district court may only summarily dismiss an application for post

conviction relief on its own motion under N.D.C.C. § 29

- 32.1

- 09(1) before the State resp onds, and after the State responds there must be a motion by either party under N.D.C.C. § 29

- 32.1

- 09(3) for the court to grant summary disposition). We summarily reverse under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b) and remand for further proceedings. [¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 76 (Friday, April 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19944-19945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7563]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-3275-EM]


Iowa; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

[[Page 19945]]

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of Iowa (FEMA-3275-EM), dated March 30, 2007, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 12, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration 
of March 30, 2007:

    Cherokee, Ida, Osceola, and Webster Counties for emergency 
protective measures (Category B), including snow removal, under the 
Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during 
or proximate to the incident period.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs, 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E7-7563 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
# C_2016068EN.01002101.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 20 November 2015 — Rodica Popescu v Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj

(Case C-614/15)

(2016/C 068/27)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Craiova

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Rodica Popescu

Appellant:

Respondent: Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the fact that the activity of the staff specifically responsible for inspections in the veterinary health sector is intrinsically linked to the continuation of the activity of the type of establishments mentioned in paragraph [5] [of the order for reference] sufficient grounds for the repeated conclusion of fixed-term contracts, by way of derogation from the general rule adopted in order to transpose Directive 70/1999? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the fact that the activity of the staff specifically responsible for inspections in the veterinary health sector is intrinsically linked to the continuation of the activity of the type of establishments mentioned in paragraph [5] [of the order for reference] sufficient grounds for the repeated conclusion of fixed-term contracts, by way of derogation from the general rule adopted in order to transpose Directive 70/1999? (1)

1

| 2. | Does the retaining in national legislation of special provisions permitting the repeated conclusion, for a period such as that described [in the order for reference], of fixed-term employment contracts in the veterinary health inspection sector constitute a failure to fulfil an obligation of the State when transposing Directive 70/1999? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the retaining in national legislation of special provisions permitting the repeated conclusion, for a period such as that described [in the order for reference], of fixed-term employment contracts in the veterinary health inspection sector constitute a failure to fulfil an obligation of the State when transposing Directive 70/1999?

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations for the
quarter ended June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,820,899
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  176,091
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    196,712
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,616,984
<PP&E>                                       9,379,926
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,157,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,329,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,127,422
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,494
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,329,236
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               860,912
<CGS>                                           64,533
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,533
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,245,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,449,587)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,449,587)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.045)



</TABLE>
# C_2015146EN.01001402.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/14

---

Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by DTL Corporación, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-176/13 DTL Corporación v OHIM

(Case C-62/15 P)

(2015/C 146/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: DTL Corporación, S.L. (represented by: A. Zuazo Araluze, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in part, in respect of all the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37, the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 24 January 2013 in Case R 661/2012-4 dismissing the appeal brought against the rejection of the application for Community trade mark No 8830821 ‘Generia’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part, in respect of all the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37, the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 24 January 2013 in Case R 661/2012-4 dismissing the appeal brought against the rejection of the application for Community trade mark No 8830821 ‘Generia’;

| — | order OHIM and the other parties to the proceedings who oppose this appeal to pay the costs of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and the other parties to the proceedings who oppose this appeal to pay the costs of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of EU law by the General Court: The Fourth Board of Appeal changed, in its decision of 24 January 2013 in Case R 661/2012-4, the grounds for the decision of the Opposition Division for rejecting Community trade mark No 8830821 ‘Generia’ in respect of Classes 9 and 37. The Opposition Division had based that rejection on the similarity of the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37 with the goods of the opposing mark in Class 7. For its part, the Board of Appeal upheld the rejection, but on the ground of the similarity of the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37 with the services of the opposing mark in Class 40. In so doing, the Board of Appeal infringed Article 64(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark because the services of the opposing mark in Class 40 had never been put forward in opposition to the goods and services of the trade mark applied for in Classes 9 and 37 (although they were put forward against the services in other classes). In addition, the decision infringed Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark since the party now appealing was not invited to submit observations on that change to the grounds. The judgment under appeal maintains that the proceedings were legally correct, thereby infringing EU law (Articles 64(1) and 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark).

Infringement of EU law by the General Court

1

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,112,175
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               505,723
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               131,241
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,089,827
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         825,265
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           836,213
<LOANS>                                     24,583,213
<ALLOWANCE>                                    466,018
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,213,390
<DEPOSITS>                                  24,563,178
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,238,464
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            616,665
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,626,289
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          150,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       755,212
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,881,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              33,213,390
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,633,096
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              174,190
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                35,475
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,842,761
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             571,572
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             759,187
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,083,574
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   94,737
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               5,277
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                883,981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                554,432
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     358,219
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   358,219
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.27
<LOANS-NON>                                    150,263
<LOANS-PAST>                                    43,318
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 5,433
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               434,508
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  105,088
<RECOVERIES>                                    27,006
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              466,018
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           466,018
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 8820)

#### Arthur J. Fritz & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 19512, etc.

(Decided June 5, 1957)

*Ernest S. Meyers*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper dutiable value of certain bicycles and kickstands, imported from England, is the subject of the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule *“A,”*attached to and made part of the decision herein.

The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed that, at the time of exportation of said articles, such or similar bicycles and kickstands were not freely offered for sale for home consumption in England or for exportation to the United States or for sale in the principal markets of the United States. It was further stipulated and agreed *674that, at the time of exportation, the cost of production of sucli bicycles and kickstands, within the purview of section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)), was $12.36 per bicycle, plus 8 per centum plus carton packing, as invoiced in each case, plus stands (kickstands) at 4 shillings, 1 pence, British currency each.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f), *swpra,*is the proper basis of value for the articles in issue and that said value is $12.36 per bicycle, plus 8 per centum, plus carton packing, as invoiced in each case, plus stands (kickstands) at 4 shillings, 1 pence, British currency each.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 56 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 56

Designating the month of March as Deep-Vein Thrombosis Awareness Month, 
                  in memory of journalist David Bloom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2005

Mr. Specter (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Brownback) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

                             March 2, 2005

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Designating the month of March as Deep-Vein Thrombosis Awareness Month, 
                  in memory of journalist David Bloom.

Whereas deep-vein thrombosis is a condition that occurs when a blood clot forms 
        in one of the large veins, which may result in a fatal pulmonary 
        embolism;
Whereas deep-vein thrombosis is a serious but preventable medical condition;
Whereas deep-vein thrombosis occurs in approximately 2,000,000 Americans every 
        year;
Whereas fatal pulmonary embolism causes more deaths each year than breast cancer 
        and AIDS combined;
Whereas complications from deep-vein thrombosis take up to 200,000 American 
        lives each year;
Whereas fatal pulmonary embolism may be the most common preventable cause of 
        hospital death in the United States;
Whereas the risk factors for deep-vein thrombosis include cancer and certain 
        heart or respiratory diseases;
Whereas pulmonary embolism is the leading cause of maternal death associated 
        with childbirth;
Whereas, according to a survey conducted by the American Public Health 
        Association, 74 percent of Americans are unaware of deep-vein 
        thrombosis;
Whereas National Broadcasting Company correspondent David Bloom died of a fatal 
        pulmonary embolism while covering the war in Iraq;
Whereas Melanie Bloom, widow of David Bloom, and more than 35 members of the 
        Coalition to Prevent Deep-Vein Thrombosis are working to raise awareness 
        of this silent killer; and
Whereas the establishment of March as Deep-Vein Thrombosis Awareness Month in 
        honor of David Bloom would raise public awareness about this life-
        threatening but preventable condition: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates the month of March as ``Deep-Vein Thrombosis 
        Awareness Month'';
            (2) honors the memory of David Bloom; and
            (3) recognizes the importance of raising awareness of deep-
        vein thrombosis.
                                 <all>
```