alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.1





Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.








This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 21, 2021 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2021-4 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.  The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.





The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer.  I further certify as follows:





1. I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023, and its performance under the Agreement.





2. To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.








AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.





By:/s/ Connie CoffeyDated:March 4, 2024Connie CoffeyExecutive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
#### Marvin L. HURD, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF the INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondents.

No. 17395.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Nov. 20, 1981.

*545Marvin Lorenzo Hurd, pro se.

David L. Wilkinson, Floyd G. Astin, K. Allan Zabel, Salt Lake City, for respon- - dents.

STEWART, Justice:

This action is here on a writ of review filed by petitioner pursuant to U.C.A., 1953, § 35-4-10 to review an order of the Board of Review of the Industrial Commission denying petitioner’s claim for unemployment compensation benefits for the period commencing July 20, 1980 and ending August 30, 1980. We affirm.

The Department of Employment Security denied benefits under the Utah Employment Security Act on the ground that during the 30 days prior to July 20, 1980 the petitioner had contacted only three businesses for the purpose of obtaining employment. On appeal, the Appeal Referee affirmed the denial of benefits for the period stated on the ground that the petitioner was not “available for work” as required by § 35 — 4-4(c) because his efforts to find work were “infrequent and sporadic.” In support of this conclusion, the referee found that the claimant had averaged less than one employer contact per week which indicated a “passive search for work ...” However, the Appeal Referee found that subsequent to August 31, 1980, the claimant made a reasonable effort to become employed, and benefits were restored as of that date “so long as the claimant continues in his efforts to find work and continues an active search for work each week.”

Petitioner then took an appeal to the Board of Review of the Industrial Commission which affirmed the decision of the Appeal Referee and adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Appeal Referee. On the appeal to the Board of Review, the petitioner submitted written evidence of additional contacts made to employers. He contended that although he could not recall exact dates, the contacts, according to his best recollection, included numerous telephone calls pursuant to want-ad listings as well as personal contacts. The Board of Review did not indicate its reason for refusing to consider petitioner’s statement, although there is a suggestion in the record that the Department’s instructions to claimants require a written record of contacts. In any event, there is no contention made on this appeal that the additional evidence was properly before the Board of Review, nor that the Board violated its rules of procedure in not considering evidence not submitted earlier.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the Board of Review erred in finding that the petitioner was “not available for work” pursuant to § 35-4-4(c) of the Employment Security Act. The order was based on substantial, competent evidence. Accordingly, the order must be affirmed. *Whitcome v. Department of Employment Security, Industrial Commission,*Utah, 564 P.2d 1116 (1977); *Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Department of Employment Security,*13 Utah 2d 262, 372 P.2d 987 (1962).

HALL, C. J., HOWE and OAKS, JJ., and CHRISTOFFERSEN, District Judge, concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 210 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 210

   Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the establishment of a 
                         Disability Arts Month.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2001

  Mr. Frost submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the establishment of a 
                         Disability Arts Month.

Whereas the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) 
        guarantees equal rights and equal opportunity to more than 54,000,000 
        American citizens with disabilities;
Whereas people of all ages can benefit from exposure to the arts;
Whereas exposure to the arts can enhance a person's success in school, work, and 
        relations with others;
Whereas exposure to the arts promotes a deeper understanding of the diversity 
        and richness of human experience; and
Whereas the establishment of a Disability Arts Month would provide an 
        opportunity to recognize and reflect on the many accomplishments of 
        American artists with disabilities who have greatly enhanced the quality 
        of life of the people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) a Disability Arts Month should be established; and
            (2) the President should issue a proclamation calling on 
        the people of the United States to observe such a month with 
        appropriate programs and activities.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.9





Patent Right Transfer Agreement





Party A: Jining Tianruitong Technology Development Limited Company


Party B: Shandong Spring Pharmaceutical Limited Company





Jining Tianruitong Technology Development Limited Company and Shandong Spring Pharmaceutical Limited Company have reached the following agreement through friendly consultation:





Transfer 3 invented patents of Jining Tianrui Tong Technology Development Company after Party A and Party B signed the Patent right transfer agreement on October 26, 2010:





1、
Medication for ischemic encephalopathy and preparation method (patent number: ZL200510045001.9);




2、
The medical application of Coptis chinensis detoxification soup in preventive treatment of tumour chemotherapy drug tolerance. (patent number: ZL200510131185.0);




3、
Traditional Chinese medicine composition and preparation methods in therapy of renal function failure (patent number: ZL200710013301.8);





The transfer price in the agreement which is RMB 102,000,000 Yuan has become effective on 26th October 2010 and performed relevant matters of transferor and transferee in accordance with the agreement. The methods of payment have made the following alteration on demand of party B:





1、
The transfer price of the three invented patents and obligation rights is immutable. The transfer price of RMB 102,000,000 Yuan would be paid four times equally which are RMB 25,500,000 Yuan in October 2010, October 2011, October 2012, and October 2013 equally.




2、
Under the agreement of both parties, Party B would make disposable compensation for party A RMB 10,000,000 Yuan including interest as a result of alternation of the methods of payment.




3、
Party A would reimburse patent transfer fees of RMB 66,500,000 Yuan to the account of Party B disposable. The fees should be transferred to the account of Party B the second week after the signing of complementary agreement (which is April 5).




1




Exhibit 10.9





4、
Party B should pay 20 percent interest of part of breach of agreement in case of  delay of compensation or any loss caused by the defer of party A.





In term of validation of the agreement, any dispute, claim, question or difference arises with respect to this Agreement or its performance or enforcement, the parties will use their reasonable efforts to attempt to settle such dispute amicably; if the parties cannot resolve the dispute, then it shall be resolved by the local court based on the prevailing arbitration rules.





The agreement has been written in triplicate, party A, party B and Sishui county notarial office hold one copy each.





Jining Tianruitong Technology Development Limited Company





Shandong Spring Pharmaceutical Limited Company





Sishui County Notarial Office





Date: March 14, 2011




2
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 415

Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of

homeownership in the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 11, 2002

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California (for himself and Mr. OXLEY) submitted

the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee

on Financial Services

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the

importance of homeownership in the United States.

Whereas the President has issued a proclamation proclaiming

June 2002 as National Homeownership Month;

Whereas owning a home represents the American dream for

our Nation’s families;

Whereas the national homeownership rate has increased to

67.8 percent, higher than at any other time in history for

all demographic groups, and homeownership rates among

minority families are increasing faster than such rates

for the population as a whole;

Whereas the purchase of a home is oftentimes a family’s largest personal investment;
2

•HCON 415 IH

Whereas homeownership provides economic stability and security for homeowners and their communities by allowing

homeowners to build wealth over the life of the home and

have a greater stake in local schools, civic organizations,

and churches;

Whereas improving homeownership opportunities requires the

commitment and cooperation of private, nonprofit, and

public sectors, including the Federal Government and

State and local governments; and

Whereas the current policies of the United States Government and the Congress encourage homeownership and

should continue to do so in the future: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) fully supports the goals and ideals of Na4 tional Homeownership Month; and

5 (2) recognizes the importance of homeownership

6 in building strong communities and families in the

7 United States.

Æ
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                    EXHIBIT 11

                                         COMPUTATION  OF EARNING PER SHARE Years
                                     ended December 31, 1996, 1995, 1994



                                                                    For the years ended December 31
                                                                    -------------------------------
                                                            1996                  1995                  1994
                                                            ----                  ----                  ----

<S>                                                      <C>                   <C>                   <C>       
Beginning shares outstanding                                26,534,742            21,360,108            13,973,068

Special warrants exercised                                   4,682,787             3,937,252             3,055,325
Average shares issued for options exercised                    187,840                     -                     -

Common share purchase warrants exercised                             -                98,950               377,957

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

Weighted average shares outstanding                         31,405,369            25,396,310            17,406,350

                                                      =================     =================     =================

Net loss                                                 $(23,069,639)          $(8,989,718)          $(5,738,926)
                                                      =================     =================     =================

Loss per common share                                          $(0.73)               $(0.35)               $(0.33)
                                                      =================     =================     =================


</TABLE>



     NOTE:All  other   issued  and   outstanding   options  and   warrants   are
          antidilutive.   Fully  diluted  loss  per  share  calculation  is  not
          different from the calculation above and therefore is not applicable.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Jeffery W.Sprick, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mueller Group, LLC;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         [Reserved]

(c)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)         Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:February 9, 2007
|        | /s/ JEFFERY W.  SPRICK    |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Jeffery W. Sprick         |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
[No. 31661-3-I.

Division One.

June 3, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Reno Tamalini Tamalini, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 92-1-01649-1, Laura Inveen, J., entered October 13, 1992. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kennedy, A.C.J., concurred in by Grosse and Agid, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19744-19745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7942]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


Advanced BioPhotonics, Inc., Advanced Viral Research Corp., 
Brantley Capital Corp., Brilliant Technologies Corporation, 4C 
Controls, Inc., and 2-Track Global, Inc.; Order of Suspension of 
Trading

March 29, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Advanced BioPhotonics, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 
reports since the period ended September 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Advanced Viral Research Corp. because it has not filed any periodic 
reports since the period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Brantley Capital Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended September 30, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a

[[Page 19745]]

lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Brilliant Technologies Corporation because it has not filed any 
periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
4C Controls, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
the period ended September 30, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
2-Track Global, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended September 30, 2009.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered, 
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that 
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended 
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on March 29, 2012, and terminating at 
11:59 p.m. EDT on April 12, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7942 Filed 3-29-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of JER Investors
Trust Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Joseph E. Robert, Jr., as Chief Executive Officer of the
Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

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

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |                           |  |                                                  
|------------------- |  | ------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 12, 2008 |  | /s/ Joseph E. Robert, Jr.
|                    |  | Name:                     |  | Joseph E. Robert, Jr.                            
|                    |  | Title:                    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 424

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Commending the patriotic contributions of the roofing professionals who replaced, at no cost to the

Federal Government, the section of the Pentagon’s slate roof that was destroyed as a result ofthe terrorist attacks against the United Statesthat occurred on September 11, 2001.

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 424

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the damage to the Pentagon that resulted from the

terrorist attacks against the United States that occurred

on September 11, 2001, included the destruction of more

than an acre of the Pentagon’s slate roof;

Whereas roofing professionals from throughout the United

States, mostly from small businesses, volunteered to work
2

•HCON 424 EH

together to replace the destroyed section of the Pentagon’s roof;

Whereas these roofing professionals donated approximately

$450,000 worth of labor and materials to the replacement effort; and

Whereas these roofing professionals successfully replaced

60,000 square feet of the Pentagon’s slate roof before

September 11, 2002, and at no cost to the Federal Government: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress commends the patriotic con3 tributions of the roofing professionals who replaced, at no

4 cost to the Federal Government, the section of the Penta5 gon’s slate roof that was destroyed as a result of the ter6 rorist attacks against the United States that occurred on

7 September 11, 2001.

Passed the House of Representatives June 27, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.
[No. 34896-5-I.

Division One.

June 3, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Lynwood Pelot, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Sno-homish County, No. 93-1-00565-7, John M. Darrah, J., entered June 10, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**INTERLINE BRANDS, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Interline Brands, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended September 24, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,John A. Ebner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /S/  JOHN A. EBNER       |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| John  A. Ebner           |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer |   |
| November 1,  2010   |   |

 

----