alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3-21-2023 Version 1

Emergency Capital Investment Program

Required Certifications

FORM OF PROCESS AND CONTROLS CERTIFICATION

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT PROCESS AND CONTROLS CERTIFICATION OF

[RECIPIENT]

In connection with that certain Letter Agreement, dated [ ], 20[ ] (the “Agreement”) 

by and between [RECIPIENT] (the “Recipient”) and the United States Department of the Treasury 

(the “Investor”), the undersigned does hereby certify on behalf of the Recipient as follows:

1. I am a duly elected/appointed Senior Executive Officer of the Recipient.

2. The processes and controls used to generate the Supplemental Reports for the Recipient’s 

fiscal year ending [ ], 20[ ] are satisfactory.

3. If the Recipient is required to include an attestation as to its internal control over financial 

reporting in connection with the filing of audited financial statements with any 

Governmental Entity or self-regulatory agency, attached hereto is an attestation with 

respect to the processes and controls used to generate the Supplemental Reports from the 

Recipient’s independent auditor.

4. The undersigned and the Recipient understand that a knowing and willful false or 

fraudulent statement made in connection with this certification may be punished by fine, 

imprisonment, or both. (See, for example, 18 U.S.C. 1001).

The foregoing certifications are made and delivered as of [ ] pursuant to 

Section 4.1(d)(ii) of the Agreement.

Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them 

in the Agreement unless otherwise stated.

[Signature page follows]
3-21-2023 Version 1

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate has been duly executed and delivered as of the [ ] 

day of [ ], 20[ ]. 

[RECIPIENT]

By: 

Name:

Title:

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice. 

OMB Approval No.: 1505-0275

Expiration Date:June 30, 2026

The information collected will be used for the U.S. Government to process requests for support.

The estimated burden associated with this collection of information is 10 minutes per response.

Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and suggestions for reducing this

burden should be directed to the Office of Privacy, Transparency and Records, Department of the 

Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20220. DO NOT send the form to

this address. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a

collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Bethea, Appellant.

[735 NYS2d 750]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Sonberg, J.), rendered October 29, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of auto stripping in the second degree, and convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of auto stripping in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see, People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459; *People v Mattiace,*77 NY2d 269, 275-276; *People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292). Defendant’s theft-related convictions were highly relevant to his credibility *(see, People v Post,*235 AD2d 299, *lv denied*90 NY2d 862). Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.
EXHIBIT 35.1

VW Credit, Inc. Servicer Compliance Statement Under Section 3.9 of the Sale and Servicing

Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB

VOLKSWAGEN AUTO LOAN ENHANCED TRUST 2010-1

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of VW
Credit, Inc. (VCI), as Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 28, 2010 (as amended and supplemented, or otherwise modified and in effect from time to time, the Sale and Servicing Agreement),
by and among Volkswagen Auto Loan Enhanced Trust 2010-1, as Issuer, Volkswagen Auto Lease/Loan Underwritten Funding, LLC as Seller, VW Credit, Inc., as Servicer, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Indenture Trustee, does hereby certify
that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, and of its performance under the Sale and
Servicing Agreement was conducted under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects
throughout such period.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate on behalf of the Servicer this
twenty-seventh day of March, 2012.



/s/ Bruce HarrisBruce HarrisVice President & CFO
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-51010

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GABRIEL MARQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CR-62-5

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Gabriel Marquez has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Marquez has not filed a response. Our independent review of

the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

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

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 20, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
256 La. 776

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Eugene GIBSON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 50826.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 1970.

In re: Eugene Gibson applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari and mandamus.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court at the hearing, there is no basis for granting the writ.

BARHAM, J.,

concurring. The shorthand notes of a reporter are not *minutes of court.*The minute *entry*officially approved under the rules of court are binding. That entry here reflects waiver of counsel by relator.
#### Emmitte Raford BEARD, Petitioner, v. E. E. SIMMONS, Respondent.

No. 40784.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 30, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 26, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00033

- CV
In the Interest of M.K.J., a minor child
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 1 of Brazos County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19

- 002522

- CV

- CCL1

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having co n sidered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinio n . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee s. We further order this decision certified below for observance. April 29, 2021
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellant,

v.

ZHENG DONG

,

Appellee.

No. 2D 2023

- 0407

August 21, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Lyann Goudie

, Judge.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alicia Winterkorn

, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa , for Appellant.

Daniel J. Fernandez, Tampa

, for Appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

SILBERMAN, LaROSE, and BLACK , JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
C~1:~ii~:I:\►ill

A LIMBED LIABILRY PARTNERSHIP FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW

February 5,2019

VIA E-Mail and First Class Mait

Secretary of the Treasury

Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20220

Re: Withdrawal of Application for Approval to Suspend ofBenefits for the Loca1807

Labor-Manaeement Pension Fund

Dear Mr. Secretary:

As authorizedby the Boazd ofTrustees ofthe Loca1807 Labor-Management PensionFund

(the "Fund"),the sponsor ofthe Fund, we hereby notify you that the Fund withdraws its application

for approval to suspend benefits, filed June 29, 2018 under section 432(e)(9) of the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and section 305(e)(9} of the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974, as amended, without prejudice. The Fund reserves the right to Resubmit a

revised application with addirional information as may be advisable or recommended by the

Department of the Treasury.

Respec ly submitted,

Larry Cary

CARP KANE LLP i33~ BF2DADWAY, SURE 1400 ~ NEW YORK, NY IOOIB 2I 2.BBB.B300 WWW.CARYKANE.COM
**Exhibit 32.1.1**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Kevin Burke, the Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (the“Company”) certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: November 2, 2005
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated October 21, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2094 contained in Amendment No. 2 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-257943) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


October 21, 2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIAN FENG GUO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 13-72858 

Agency No. A088-324-983 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Jian Feng Guo, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-72858 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due 

process violations, Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010), 

and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the 

standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID 

Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part 

and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on Guo’s inadequate explanations for his acquisition of a passport in 2006; 

his repeated mis-statements and significant differences in his testimony as to basic 

facts, including his daughter’s date of birth and various employment dates; and an 

inconsistency as to whether he was arrested in the morning or the evening. See id.

at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the 

circumstances). Guo’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata 

v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible 

testimony, in this case, Guo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See 

Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).

We reject Guo’s contentions that the IJ violated his due process rights by 

considering the asylum officer’s interview notes. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246

(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Guo’s contentions concerning his 
3 13-72858 

CAT claim because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. 

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review 

claims not presented to the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Treasury approves New York’s plan to invest $228.3 million of CPF funding 

in broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality internet 

to locations that lack access to adequate service.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

New York

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Program Summary: $228.3 million for Broadband Infrastructure (66% of CPF allocation)

 Program Description: The Municipal Infrastructure Program (MIP) is a competitive grant program 

designed to fund local governments and internet service providers (ISPs) to build last-mile broadband 

infrastructure. New York estimates the infrastructure will serve tens of thousands of locations. The 

MIP will prioritize eligible applicants based on several categories including experience, cost, project 

readiness, broadband service quality, and digital equity impact.

‒ This program is designed to provide internet service with speeds of 100/100 Mbps upon project 

completion.

‒ Internet service providers utilizing investments funded by CPF will be required to participate in 

the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy for low-income 

families. 

 Key State Contact: The New York ConnectALL Office (CAO)

New York Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10455 Conference Calendar

ALFRONZO BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RICHARD MAYS, Judge, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CV-346-D

- - - - - - - - - - June 27, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alfronzo Brown, Texas prisoner #627935, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Brown argues that the defendant is not entitled to absolute judicial immunity. We have reviewed the record and Brown’s brief and find no reversible error in the reasoning adopted by the district court. Brown v. Mays , No. 3:96-CV-346-D (N.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 1995). Further, we find that Brown’s appealNo. 96-10455 - 2 - is frivolous, and accordingly, we DISMISS it pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Brown that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Brown is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this
court.
APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
NO. 07-01-0448-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

MAY 22, 2002

______________________________

LUREANER OULARE,

Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF POTTER COUNTY COUNTY;

NO. 95,498-1; HON. W.F. CORKY ROBERTS, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, J.J.

Appellant Lureaner Oulare appeals her conviction of resisting arrest, search or

transportation. Her sole issue is identical to that raised in Lureaner Oulare v. State, No.

07-01-0404-CR, pending in this court. We overrule it for the same reasons stated in our

opinion issued this day in Lureaner Oulare v. State, No. 07-01-0404-CR. That is,

appellant waived the issue. 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Brian Quinn 

 Justice

Do not publish.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Maurekus Markell Grigsby, Appellant

No. 06-23-00137-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of 

Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 29062). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Stevens, Justice van Cleef and 

Justice Rambin participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to 

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Maurekus Markell Grigsby, has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 18, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 13.2





PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350











In connection with this Annual Report of Diana Containerships Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andreas Michalopoulos, Chief Financial 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) 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.





A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: February 23, 2012














/s/ Andreas Michalopoulos


Andreas Michalopoulos


Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Joseph P. D’ALESSANDRO, etc., Petitioner, v. John H. SHEARER, Jr., etc., Respondent. In Re Jerry CROOKS, Case No. 77-466CF. Joseph P. D’ALESSANDRO, etc., Petitioner, v. John H. SHEARER, Jr., etc., Respondent. In Re William OPITZ, Case No. 77-183CF.

Nos. 53124, 53143.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 30, 1978.

Joseph P. D’Alessandro, State’s Atty., in pro per.

Louis S. St. Laurent, Chief Asst.. State’s Atty., and Patricia A. Kerwin, Asst. State’s Atty., Fort Myers, for petitioner.

John H. Shearer, Jr., in pro per.

BOYD, Justice.

The State Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit petitioned this Court for an *775alternative writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable John Shearer, Lee County Circuit Judge, to perform his legal duty under Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes. We issued the writ and have received the Judge’s response. We have concluded that a final writ should be issued.

The statute requires that any person convicted of certain enumerated criminal offenses, among them robbery, and who had a firearm in his possession at the time of the crime, “shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of three calendar years . . . adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence shall not be suspended, deferred or withheld, nor shall the defendant be eligible for parole or statutory gain-time . . . prior to serving [the] minimum sentence.” Section 775.087(2)(b), Florida Statutes. In two cases before Judge Shearer, *State v. Crooks*and *State v. Opitz,*the defendants, charged with robbery with a firearm, pleaded guilty as charged. The record shows that Judge Shearer refused to order the mandatory minimum sentences because he believed them to be unconstitutional, despite awareness of our decision upholding the statute against constitutional attack. See *Sowell*v. *State,*342 So.2d 969 (Fla.1977).

In the return and accompanying brief, Judge Shearer defends his inaction with the explanation that he believes he has performed his duty under the statute since he sentenced both defendants to five-year terms of imprisonment. The orders of judgment and sentence bear out that the five-year sentences were imposed. We give Judge Shearer the benefit of the doubt as to his intention. Still, the orders do not recite that the defendants are subject to the mandatory minimum sentence of three years imprisonment. Without such a recitation the authorities will not be on notice that the case calls for service in prison of a minimum of three years. And, even if they received notice by other means, without a judicial order it would be questionable whether minimum service was required. This cause is remanded to respondent with directions to vacate the prior sentences and impose sentences requiring three years of imprisonment on each defendant before possible eligibility for release, as provided in Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ENGLAND, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.