alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1








I, Susan B. Sheffield, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2021-3  (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;





3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  The Bank of New York Mellon.








By:/s/ Susan B. SheffieldName:Susan B. SheffieldTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:March 3, 2023
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of EPL
Intermediate, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven E. Carley, President of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      
|----------------------
|                      
|/s/ Stephen E. Carley 
|Stephen E. Carley     
|President             
|EPL Intermediate, Inc.
|August 12, 2005       



This certification is made solely for
the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EPL Intermediate, Inc. and will be retained by EPL Intermediate, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SCPW-20-0000085 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

JUDGES FOR JUSTICE, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE HENRY T. NAKAMOTO, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai # i , Respondent Judge, and ALBERT IAN SCHWEITZER; STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P. NO. 07-1-0007) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Nakasone, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Judges for Justice’s petition for writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus, respondent Albert Ian Schweitzer’s answering brief, respondent State of Hawai # i’s answer, the respondent judge’s answer, the respective supporting documents, and the record, it appears that petitioner is currently seeking relief by way of an appeal in the Intermediate Court of Appeals in CAAP-20-0000374. Extraordinary relief is therefore not warranted. See Gannett Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000085 09-SEP-2020 08:53 AMPac. Corp. v. Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 226, 580 P.2d 49, 53

(1978) (a writ of prohibition is not meant to serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures); Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, September 9, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Karen T. Nakasone

2
Thomas A. 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 8, 2015

No. 04-15-00317-CV

Austin HELMLE and Harriet Marmon Helmle,

Appellants

v.

Thomas A. LAURIN, individually, Thomas A. Laurin Companies, Elegant Country Homes and 

Elegant Country Homes, Inc.,

Appellees

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09-315CCL

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On June 3, 2015, the court reporter filed a notification of late record stating the reporter=s 

record has not been filed because appellant failed to provide proper notice to the reporter of the 

appeal and failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter=s fee for preparing the record. 

The court reporter also states appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide proof to this court within ten (10) days 

of the date of this order that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been 

made to pay the reporter=s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s 

fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within 

thirty (30) days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider those issues or points 

raised in appellant=s brief that do not require a reporter=s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of June, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**INTERLINEBRANDS, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Interline Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 27, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas J.Tossavainen, 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 Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ THOMAS J.  TOSSAVAINEN |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Thomas J. Tossavainen      |   |
| Chief Financial Officer    |   |
| May 4,  2009          |   |

 

----
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 347

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the

National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service.

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 347

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

•HCON 347 EH

1 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL

2 PEACE OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL SERVICE.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The National Fraternal Order of

4 Police and its auxiliary (in this resolution referred to as

5 the ‘‘sponsor’’) shall be permitted to sponsor a public

6 event, the 21st annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial

7 Service (in this resolution jointly referred to as the

8 ‘‘event’’), on the Capitol Grounds, in order to honor the

9 law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty dur10 ing 2001.

11 (b) DATE OF EVENT.—The event shall be held on

12 May 15, 2002, or on such other date as the Speaker of

13 the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules

14 and Administration of the Senate jointly designate.

15 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—Under conditions to be prescribed

17 by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police

18 Board, the event shall be—

19 (1) free of admission charge and open to the

20 public; and

21 (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of

22 Congress.

23 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall

24 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities

25 incident to all activities associated with the event.
3

•HCON 347 EH

1 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

2 Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Cap3 itol, the sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol

4 Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and

5 other related structures and equipment, as may be re6 quired for the event.

7 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

8 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce9 ment of the restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act

10 of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), con11 cerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations

12 on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions appli13 cable to the Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.

Passed the House of Representatives April 30, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ernest Villa Marquez

, * From the 14 2nd District

Court of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR42478

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00215

- CR * April 23, 2015

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson , J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANTHONY BRAXTON

, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 23

- 01004 (UNA)

)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter, filed pro se , is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint,

ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will

grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction.

“ Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authoriz ed

by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.”

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am ., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). A part y

seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court ’ s

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action.

Plaintiff ’s Complaint is based “on the actions and misconduct of the Superior Court of the

District of Columbia” during multiple court proceedings

. Compl. at 1; see id . at 2

- 4

. T his federal

district court lacks jurisdiction to re view another court’s decisions and order it to take any action

.

See Gray v. Poole , 275 F.3d 1113, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“ The Rooker

- Feldman doctrine prevents

lower federal courts from hearing cases that amount to the functional equivalent of an appeal from

a state court. ”) (citing Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Fel dman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983);

Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co ., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) ); United States v. Choi , 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 8 52 (D.D.C. 2011) (district courts “ generally lack [] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies,

and cannot exercise appellate manda mus over other courts. ”) (citing Lewis v. Green , 629 F. Supp.

546, 553 (D.D.C. 1986) )

. Plaintiff’s recourse lies, if at all, in the D .C. Court of Appeals and the

U .S. Supreme Court

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (“ Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest

court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ

of certiorari [.]”). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order

.

________ _

_

___________ TREVOR N. M c FADDEN

Date: June 12 , 2023 United States District Judge
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RAUL PRECIADO-OVALLES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50377

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02792-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2015** 

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Raul Preciado-Ovalles appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

SEP 01 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Preciado-Ovalles contends that the district court relied on improper factors

to deny his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We

review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines and for clear

error its factual determination that a defendant is not a minor participant. See

United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 2011). The

record reflects that the district court understood and applied the correct legal

standard, properly considered the totality of the circumstances, and did not rely on

improper factors in denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A),

(C); United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2014), cert.

denied, 135 S. Ct. 1467 (2015). The record further supports the court’s conclusion

that Preciado-Ovalles failed to carry his burden of establishing that he was entitled

to the adjustment. See Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d at 1193.

Preciado-Ovalles next contends that the district court procedurally erred by

imposing a pre-determined sentence and by failing to explain the sentence

adequately. These contentions are not supported by the record.

Lastly, Preciado-Ovalles contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the

sentence, which is 38 months below the bottom of the Guidelines range. See Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50377
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 369

Calling upon Yasser Arafat and the leaders of other countries in the Middle

East to accept the existence of Israel.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 2002

Mr. SAXTON submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Calling upon Yasser Arafat and the leaders of other countries

in the Middle East to accept the existence of Israel.

Whereas the United States seeks peace with security for

Israel and the Palestinian people;

Whereas ongoing terrorist attacks against Israel have created

conditions that threaten both the Jewish State and regional peace;

Whereas Israel currently relies upon territories captured in

the course of previous defensive wars to protect itself

against renewed attacks;

Whereas in the absence of a genuine commitment to peaceful

coexistence with Israel on the part of the Palestinian people and Israel’s historic enemies, the relinquishing of
2

•HCON 369 IH

such territories by Israel could give rise to new and potentially mortal threats to the Jewish State;

Whereas under Yasser Arafat, the Palestine Liberation Organization, at the 12th Session of the Palestinian National

Council held in Cairo, Egypt in 1974, adopted a ‘‘Plan

of Phases’’ which envisioned a 3-step approach for the

destruction of the State of Israel; and

Whereas the Palestinian National Authority routinely uses a

map of ‘‘Palestine’’ in its offices, on the uniforms of its

personnel, on its web site, and in the textbooks used to

teach Palestinian children, in which Israel does not exist

but is represented as part of the nation of ‘‘Palestine’’:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) calls upon Yasser Arafat to embrace a vi4 sion for a genuine and just peace in the Middle East

5 by formally renouncing any map of Palestine that

6 denies the existence of the State of Israel; and

7 (2) calls upon the leaders of Saudi Arabia,

8 Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and other

9 nations that have historically been enemies of Israel,

10 many of whom will be meeting in Beirut on March

11 27, and 28, 2002, to express their commitment to

12 peaceful coexistence with Israel through a similar

13 public expression of accepting the existence of Israel.

Æ
[No. 34212-6-I.

Division One.

March 11, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. John Walden, *Petitioner.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Sno-homish County, No. 93-1-01530-0, Thomas J. Wynne, J., entered March 2, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J. concurred in by Kennedy, A.C.J., and Agid, J.
### -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5
38.0 38.5 39.0 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/11 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 11 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.48 N 77.37 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■

■ ■ 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
[No. 14115-2-III.

Division Three.

July 30, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Patrick Neil Lowden, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Stevens County, No. 94-1-00035-1, Fred L. Stewart, J., entered June 17, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, C.J., concurred in by Munson and Schul-theis, JJ.
# RECEIVED
7nll JUN I l 

## P I: 4\ Glenn H Brown 

# Pathfinder Aviation JUN·.- 6. 2G12 

# 'HEARING lDOCKET Senior Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel AlaskaRegion, Federal Aviation Administration 222 

### W. 

## ih Avenue #14 Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

### RE: Response to complainant's motion to deem certain facts admitted and for a decision regarding the violation letter received May 18, 2012. FDMS No. FAA-2012-0028 May 25,2012
Mr. Brown, Pathfmder did file an SDRreport. The discrepancy betweenyour understanding and ours lies inthe details ofwhen the report was filed and why. We did not believe that an SDR was required. Immediately following the incident we were in discussion withthe FAA andthe NTSB offices inAnchorage to determine ifthe event was even reportable. After the classification was made, and we were made aware ofit, we filed the SDR. As I mentioned before, Pathfinder has had a perfect safety record and excellent relations with the FAAregarding operations. I believe a warning letter 

### inthis case is more appropriate. 

# ¥:ift:*
IVlichael W Fell President

CC (Original): Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 CC: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20, US Dept ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave, S.E., Washington DC 20590
PO Box 375 Homer, Alaska 99603 (907) 226-2800 office (907) 226-2801 fax
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88462) pertaining to the CRIIMI
MAE Management, Inc. Retirement Plan and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-73100 and 333-90410) pertaining to the CRIIMI
MAE Inc. 2001 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated March 8, 2004, with respect to the 2003 and 2002 consolidated financial statements of CRIIMI MAE Inc. included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

Ernst &
Young LLP
McLean, Virginia
March 8, 2004

---

QuickLinks
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Date: November 14, 2007
    
    /s/ Crit S. DeMentName: Crit S. DeMentTitle: Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven L. COHEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 81SA567.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Feb. 1, 1982.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., John Daniel Dailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Gerald E. Piper, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

This case is a sequel to our opinion in *People v. Cohen,*Colo., 617 P.2d 1205 (1980), in which we reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing of the defendant on his guilty plea to second degree burglary of a dwelling, section 18-4 — 203, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). The record in that case indicated that in sentencing the defendant, who was then twenty-four years old with no prior juvenile or adult criminal record, the court did not consider his rehabilitative needs but instead focused exclusively on the issue of punishment. We vacated the sentence to a term of twenty to twenty-five years and directed the sentencing judge to “address and balance the defendant’s need with those of the public-within the statutory sentencing scheme applicable to a class three felony.” Colo., 617 P.2d at 1207.

At a resentencing hearing on December 12, 1980, the district judge, after stating that he disagreed with our reversal of the *1139original sentence and that he did not care about the defendant’s rehabilitative potential, imposed a sentence of eighteen to twenty-five years and this appeal followed. The defendant contends that the court ignored the directions in our original opinion and the Attorney General properly has confessed error in this respect. Ordinarily, in view of the sentencing judge’s remarks at the resentencing hearing, we would order that the case be assigned to another judge. However, the sentencing judge has resigned from the bench and will no longer be involved in this case.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court for resen-tencing in accordance with the views expressed in our previous opinion.

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.