alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|  | 1. | I am a duly authorized officer of BMW Financial Services NA, LLC; |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | I have reviewed the terms of that certain Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 30, 1995 (the “Basic Servicing Agreement”), between Financial Services Vehicle Trust (the “Trust”) and BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”), as supplemented by the 2016-1 SUBI Servicing Supplement, dated as of February 17, 2016 (together with the Basic Servicing Agreement, the “Servicing Agreement”), among the Trust, BMW Manufacturing L.P., as grantor and initial beneficiary of the Trust, and BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, as sponsor and as Servicer, and I have made, or have caused to be made under my supervision, a detailed review of the activities of the Servicer and the performance of its obligations thereunder during the period from February 17, 2016 to December 31, 2016; |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on the review described in paragraph 2, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects during the period from February 17, 2016 to December 31, 2016, except as set forth below. |
|--|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 50415 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

DANNY ORTIZ

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CR

- 1015

- 1

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Danny Ortiz has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ortiz

h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant
portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment
that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 21, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-50415 Document: 00513883098 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2017No. 16

- 50415

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from furthe r responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-50415 Document: 00513883098 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2017
July 2, 1969

No. 69-26

#### In re Guadalupe Villarreal, PVT, U. S. Army.

Upon consideration of the aver-ments of the “Petition” herein, from which it appears that no court-martial proceedings are pending or threatened against the petitioner but that he may be suffering from certain physicial infirmities which he believes will impair his ability to carry out military orders that may be given him in the course of anticipated duty in the Republic of Vietnam, and further that his parents are elderly, in ill-health, and may be in need of his presence, and upon consideration of petitioner’s prayer for grant of a hardship discharge from the United States Army, It is

ORDERED by the Court that said “Petition” be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter thereof.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1871

MARIA LETICIA GUZMAN PINEDA,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: February 10, 2015 Decided: February 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hugo Cesar Castro, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joyce 

R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, 

Assistant Director, Kristofer R. McDonald, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Maria Leticia Guzman Pineda, a native and citizen of 

El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the 

immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation 

of removal.

We review legal issues de novo, “affording appropriate 

deference to the [Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration 

and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang 

Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). 

Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 

contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). We defer to the 

Board’s factual findings under the substantial evidence rule. 

Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 252 (4th Cir. 2008).

Upon review, we agree that Pineda’s conviction for 

forgery of a public record was a crime involving moral 

turpitude, which rendered her ineligible for cancellation of 

removal. We therefore uphold the agency’s decision and deny the 

petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In 

re: Pineda (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2014). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 31.4



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-14(A) AND 15D-14(A)
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Matt Aune, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Phunware
Inc.; and



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|Date: April 30, 2019 | By: | /s/ Matt Aune                                                                                 
|-------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Matt Aune
        Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,023

EX PARTE LEONARD REED, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1073597W IN CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3

FROM TARRANT COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of theft and

sentenced to two (2) years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. 

Applicant alleges inter alia that he has already been prosecuted and convicted for this offense

in municipal court and that his subsequent conviction for the same offense in Criminal District Court

No. 3 violates the Double Jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. 

The trial judge has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that relief
2

be granted. Specifically, the trial judge found that the charges in this case were initially brought in

municipal court, that Applicant pleaded guilty, and the municipal judge entered a judgment on May

21, 2008. The State subsequently brought the same charges in Criminal District Court No. 3,

Applicant pleaded guilty, and the district judge entered a judgment on August 16, 2007. The trial

judge found that Applicant was prosecuted twice for the same offense in violation of the Double

Jeopardy clause. We agree.

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 1073597W in the Criminal District Court No.

3 of Tarrant County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Tarrant

County to answer the charges against him. Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed. See Ex

parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: October 15, 2008

Do Not Publish
# Official Journal C 445/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 445 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5930 November 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 445

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5930 November 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 445/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2016/C 445/02 | Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union | 2 |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2016/C 445/03 | Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 11 October 2016 concerning public access to documents held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the exercise of its administrative functions | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 445/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2016/C 445/02

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

2

Court of Justice of the European Union

2016/C 445/03

Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 11 October 2016 concerning public access to documents held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the exercise of its administrative functions

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 445/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8274 — Cinven/Permira/Allegro/Ceneo) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| 2016/C 445/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8087 — Smiths Group/Morpho Detection) (
  1
  ) | 8 |
| 2016/C 445/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (M.8272 — CVC/Cinven/Newday) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 9 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 445/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8274 — Cinven/Permira/Allegro/Ceneo) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

7

2016/C 445/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8087 — Smiths Group/Morpho Detection) (
  1
  )

1

8

2016/C 445/06

Prior notification of a concentration (M.8272 — CVC/Cinven/Newday) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

9

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit
    8.1   List
of subsidiaries  Subsidiary
    Name
    %
    heldCIMC Marketing Pty Limited
    100%
    DirectBinario Limited
    100%
    DirectSmartglass Limited (formerly Dragon Creative Limited)
    100%
    DirectGOXD Technology Limited
    76%
    IndirectGOXD Dongguan Limited
    76%
    IndirectMarvel Digital Limited
    95%
    IndirectVisumotion International Limited (renamed to Cystar International Limited on March 24, 2020)
    95%
    IndirectMarvel Display Technology (Shenzhen)
    Limited
    95%
    IndirectDigital Media Technology
    Limited
    100%
    Indirect
(Reap. Dec. *9577)*

#### *Cosmic Radio Corp. Globe Shipping Co. Inc.*v. United States

Entry No. 938926.

(Decided December 30, 1959)

Plaintiffs not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

When this appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiffs.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by this appeal to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2016090EN.01001602.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Rod Leichtmetallräder v OHIM — Rodi TR (ROD)

(Case T-75/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark ROD - Earlier national figurative marks RODI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Earlier opposition proceedings - Rule 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2016/C 090/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rod Leichtmetallräder GmbH (Weiden in der Oberpfalz, Germany) (represented by: J. Hellenbrand and J. Biener, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rodi TR, SL, (Lleida, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2014 (Case R 281/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Rodi TR, SL and Rod Leichtmetallräder GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Rod Leichtmetallräder GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rod Leichtmetallräder GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

1

---
Before the Second Division,

May 31, 1961

No. 65710.

#### Herz Specialty Products, Inc., and Rietmann-Pilcer Co. *v.*United States,

protest 220728-K (New York).

Opinion, by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of traveling irons similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Greatrex, Limited,*and *J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 79, C.D. 1639), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 62076.

#### Felix Lorenzoni *v.*United States,

protests 262564—K, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of marble slabs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *General Shipping & Trading Co. et al.*(44 C. C. P. A. 168, C. A. D. 656), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked “A” at 7 cents per superficial foot under paragraph 232 (b), as modified, *supra;*(2) the items marked “B” at 8 cents per superficial foot under said modified paragraph; and (3) the item marked “C” at 9)4 cents per superficial foot under said modified paragraph.
# C_2015262EN.01000401.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureș (Romania) lodged on 8 May 2015 — ENEFI Energiahatekonysagi Nyrt v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Brașov — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Mureș

(Case C-212/15)

(2015/C 262/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Mureș

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: ENEFI Energiahatekonysagi Nyrt

Appellant:

Respondent: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Brașov

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | For the interpretation of Article 4(1) and Article 4(2)(f) and (k) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1), may the effects of the insolvency proceedings governed by the law of the State in which proceedings are opened include forfeiture of the right of a creditor, which has not taken part in the insolvency proceedings, to pursue its claim in another Member State or suspension of the enforcement of that claim in that other Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1)

For the interpretation of Article 4(1) and Article 4(2)(f) and (k) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1), may the effects of the insolvency proceedings governed by the law of the State in which proceedings are opened include forfeiture of the right of a creditor, which has not taken part in the insolvency proceedings, to pursue its claim in another Member State or suspension of the enforcement of that claim in that other Member State?

1

| 2) | Is it relevant that the claim pursued by means of enforcement in a Member State other than the State in which the proceedings are opened is a fiscal claim? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Is it relevant that the claim pursued by means of enforcement in a Member State other than the State in which the proceedings are opened is a fiscal claim?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2015245EN.01005102.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/51

---

Action brought on 18 May 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-77/15)

(2015/C 245/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision to limit the retroactive payment of the expatriation allowance to a period of five years, from the date on which the failure to pay that allowance was discovered and an order against the defendant to pay default interest.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) to limit the payment of the expatriation allowance, which had been wrongly omitted since 1 September 2007, to a period of five years; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) to limit the payment of the expatriation allowance, which had been wrongly omitted since 1 September 2007, to a period of five years;

| — | order the Commission to pay to the applicant the expatriation allowances that he has been entitled to since 1 September 2007 plus default interest calculated at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points on the sums already paid to the applicant by way of arrears of remuneration (expatriation allowance) and on those sums still due, from their respective due date until full payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay to the applicant the expatriation allowances that he has been entitled to since 1 September 2007 plus default interest calculated at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points on the sums already paid to the applicant by way of arrears of remuneration (expatriation allowance) and on those sums still due, from their respective due date until full payment;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2015190EN.01000601.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/6

---

Appeal brought on 30 March 2015 by Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union

(Case C-153/15 P)

(2015/C 190/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, advokat, G. Pandey, Advocaat, D. Rovetta, avocat, M. Gambardella, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the order of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13, Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union, and declare the action for annulment to be admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13, Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union, and declare the action for annulment to be admissible;

| — | Refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | Order the Council to bear the costs of the present appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to bear the costs of the present appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits two grounds of challenge, whereby the General Court has based the contested order on manifest errors of assessment and errors in law.

The Appellant finds that the General Court has committed manifest errors of assessment by holding first that a complete individual notification took place on 19 October 2012, and second that this notification occurred prior to the publication of a general notice of notification in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 October 2012.

Further, the Appellant finds that the General Court committed errors in law firstly by failing to take into account the requirement that a notification must include a statement of reasons, secondly by holding that an individual notification could have the effect of shortening the time limit for a judicial challenge to a legal act of the Europrean Union, thirdly by disregarding the legal consequences of the choices made by the Council in relation to the notification procedure, and fourthly by failing to take into account the legitimate understanding of the law at the time of the Application.

---