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



SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT



Re:
Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC in its capacity as Servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Sale and Servicing
Agreement, dated as of September 1, 2021, among Mercedes-Benz Auto Receivables Trust 2021-1, as Issuer, Mercedes-Benz Retail Receivables
LLC f/k/a Daimler Retail Receivables LLC, as Depositor, and Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, as Seller and Servicer (the
“Servicing Agreement”), for the period from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023 (the “Reporting Period”).



I,
Christian Rottenkolber, certify that:



| | (a) | A
                                         review of the Servicer’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance
                                         under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To
                                         the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its
                                         obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting
                                         Period.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 20, 2024





| | /s/
    Christian Rottenkolber                        | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------- | 
| | Name:
    Christian Rottenkolber                     
| | Title:
    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Signal
Hill Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Grainne Coen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 operation of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                    
| |    | Date: March 30, 2022                                                                                                                               



| | /s/ Grainne Coen                            
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Grainne Coen                                
| | Chief Financial Officer                     
| | (Principal financial and accounting officer)
m -&

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA #14-13-00630-CR OFFENSE: Poss with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance

STYLE: Lash Adarrin Scott v The State of Texas COUNTY: Harris

COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed as Reformed TRIAL COURT: 183rd District Court

DATE: December 23, 2014 Publish: No TC CASE #: 1371641

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Lash Adarrin Scott v The State of Texas

CCA#

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

P£0 S£ Petition

\IS:

J**«-/5"

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CO

DATE: ^y/^/^/LT PC:

JUDGE: fjA UM>i^n^ PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

FOR REHEARI

JUDGE:

NG IN CCA IS:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 24, 2009

d0217 

# Order

February 24, 2009

137802

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137802 COA: 286736 Oakland CC: 2006-210897-FC ELICE PATTON ARNOLD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 4, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 24, 2009 

d0217 

Order 

 

February 24, 2009 

137802 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137802 

 COA: 286736 

Oakland CC: 2006-210897-FC 

ELICE PATTON ARNOLD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 4, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Opinion issued October 27, 2022

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 2 2
- 00 6 35
- CV

——————————— IN RE JUAN ENRIQUEZ , Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Juan Enriquez , proceeding pro se, ha s filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus asserting that the trial court has abused its discretion in “den[ying] [his] motion for a trial date” and “allow[ing ] [real party in interest, Ahmed A. Morsy ,2

M.D. ,] to interpose affirmative defenses previously waived by him, defenses rejected by this Court, and defenses based on a medical claim no longer in th[e] case.” 1 We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

. A ll pending motions are
dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Countiss, and Farris

.

1 The underlying case is Juan Enriquez v. Ahmed A. Morsy, M.D. , Cause No. 18

- CV

- 0884 , in the 1 0 th District Court of Galveston County, Texas, the Honorable Kerry Neves presiding.
[No. 18590-3-II.

Division Two.

August 9, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Wiley D. Elam, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Mason County, No. 94-1-00065-9, James B. Sawyer II, J., entered August 4, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Seinfeld, C.J., and Turner, J.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

BRIAN JOHN PARDO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0183 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-002384-001

The Honorable Jay R. Adleman, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Desiree Michelle Kerfoot

Counsel for Respondent

Brian John Pardo, Kingman

Petitioner

FILED 11-22-2022
STATE v. PARDO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, Judge James B. Morse Jr., and Judge 

Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM,

¶1 Petitioner Brian John Pardo seeks review of the superior 

court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's 

first petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court's order denying the petition for post-conviction, response, and reply. 

Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.
Exhibit 10.10


 


SUBSCRIPTION
AGREEMENT


 


		TO:	The
                                            Directors of Qomolangma Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”).



 


The
undersigned hereby subscribes for 12,500 shares of common stock (the “Shares”) of the Company. In consideration for the issue
of the Shares, the undersigned hereby agrees and undertakes to pay $217.39 to the Company.


 


We
agree to take the Shares subject to the Certificate of Incorporation and By-laws of the Company and we authorize you to enter the following
name and address in the stockholders ledger of the Company:


 





		Name:	Lin
                                            Shi
	 	 	 
		Address:  	Beijing
                                            Tiantan Hospital
	 	 	West
                                            South 4th Ring Road, #119 Fengtai Dist.
	 	 	Beijing
                                            10000, China


 


	/s/
    Shi Lin	 
	Name:	Shi
    Lin	 
	 	 	 
	Dated:	September
    25, 2021 	 
	 	 	 
	Accepted:	 
	 	 	 
	QOMOLANGMA
    ACQUISITION CORP	 
	 	 	 
	Signed: 	/s/
    Jonathan Myers	 
	Name:	Jonathan
    Myers	 
	Title:	President
    and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 	 	 
	Dated:	September
    25, 2021
#### SAND DOLLAR INVESTMENTS, INC., Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. ANJA, INC., and Mistel, Inc., Appellees/Cross Appellants.

No. 85-648.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 21, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 19, 1986.

Gary M. Dunkel of Lewis, Vegosen & Rosenbach, P.A., Palm Beach, for appellant/cross appellee.

J. Stephen Tierney, III, of Neill Griffin Jeffries & Lloyd Chartered, Fort Pierce, for appellees/cross appellants.

PER CURIAM.

On the main appeal, we reverse and remand with direction to calculate a reasonable attorney’s fee in accordance with the guidelines set out in *Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe,*472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985). The mortgage required appellants to pay a reasonable fee. There being no percentage recited in the instrument, section 687.06, Florida Statutes (1985) does not apply.1*See Sepler v. Emanuel,*388 So.2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); *Dean v. Coyne,*455 So.2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

We affirm the cross appeal.

GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

LETTS, J., dissents with opinion.

1

. 687.06 Attorney’s fee in enforcing nonusurious contracts; proviso; insurance premiums; attorney’s fee provided in note. — This chapter shall not be so construed as to prevent provision for the payment of such attorney’s fees as the court may determine in cases brought before the court to be reasonable and just for legal services rendered in enforcing nonusurious contracts, either at law or in equity. This chapter shall not be construed so as to prohibit mortgagees from contracting for or collecting premiums for insurance actually issued on the property mortgaged, with the usual loss payable or mortgage clause attached thereto; provided further, that it shall not be necessary for the court to adjudge an attorney’s fee, provided in any note or other instrument of writing, to be reasonable and just, when such fee does not exceed 10 percent of the principal sum named in said note, or other instrument in writing.

LETTS, Judge,

dissenting.

I do not agree that section 687.06, Florida Statutes (1985) does not apply. Quite to the contrary, it *does*apply and in a manner that supports affirmance in view of the fact the attorney’s fee in this case was approximately five percent of the outstanding balance of the note and mortgage. Further, I also cannot agree that the two cases cited support the majority’s conclusion.
# Worksheet

&G		

&8Appendix I - SCI Division Audit Billing Procedure, Worksheet Version 4.01		&8Page &P 

&8Appendix I - SCI Division Audit Billing Procedure, Worksheet Version 4.01		&8Page &P USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

# Lists

# image1.jpeg
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, David R. White, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IASIS Healthcare LLC;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: May 9, 2008
**/**s/ David R.White
[No. 36230-5-I.

Division One.

August 19, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jiri Rehak, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-1-05970-6, Anthony P. Wartnik, J., entered February 6, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Baker, C.J., concurred in by Kennedy and Ellington, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 21998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8761]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances: Notice of Application

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General shall, prior to 
issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a 
controlled substance in schedule I or II, and prior to issuing a 
regulation under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2) authorizing the importation of 
such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the 
bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
    Therefore, in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice 
that on December 7, 2011, Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc., 705 Eldorado 
Street, Decatur, Illinois 62523, made application by renewal to the 
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer 
of Nabilone (7379), a basic class of controlled substance listed in 
schedule II.
    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for 
distribution to its customers.
    Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, 
registered with DEA to manufacture such basic class of controlled 
substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the 
proposed registration, and may, at the same time, file a written 
request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43, 
and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than May 14, 2012.
    This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and 
independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), 
(d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the 
Federal Register on September 23, 1975, 40 FR 43745-46, all applicants 
for registration to import a basic class of any controlled substance 
listed in schedule I or II are, and will continue to be, required to 
demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion 
Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, that the requirements for 
such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a); 21 U.S.C. 823(a); and 
21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are satisfied.

    Dated: April 2, 2012.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-8761 Filed 4-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Exhibit 99.1





REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 ON SCHEDULE







To the Board of Directors

Vulcan International Corporation

Wilmington, Delaware





We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Vulcan International Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004
and 2003
 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004, and have issued our report thereon dated February 1 8
, 2005
..   S
uch consolidated financial statements and report are included in Part IV, Item 15
(a)1 of this Form 10-K and the 2004
Annual Report to Shareholders and are incorporated herein by reference.  Our audit also included the financial statement schedule of Vulcan International Corporation and subsidiaries listed in Part IV, Item1 5
(a)2.  The financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.  In our opinion, this
financial statement schedule, presents fairly in all material respects ,
 the information set forth therein when read in conjun
c tion with the related consolidated financial statements.







/s/J.D. CLOUD & CO. L.L.P.



Certified Public Accountants





Cincinnati, Ohio

February 1 8,
 2005
**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of INverso Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

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

and 

(b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  

INverso Corp.

Date: January 26, 2005 

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner 

    Thomas Kirchner

    Chief Executive Officer 

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

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-30619 Summary Calendar

FREDDIE SUE THOMAS; ET AL, Plaintiffs,

VERSUS

GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION; ET AL, Defendants.

*******************************************************

ROBERT M. FLOYD, Cross Claimant - Counter Claimant - Appellant,

VERSUS

GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION, Cross Defendant - Appellee,

and

FREDDIE SUE THOMAS; LORI GORE TERRELL, Counter Defendants - Appellees.* 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.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-2150 January 12, 1998 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The only issue remaining before the Court in this appeal is whether or not the district court’s granting of a summary judgment against the appellant Floyd and in favor of his employer, Georgia Pacific, was error. We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the appendix and the record excerpts and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum ruling filed under date of May 15, 1997, we are persuaded that Fl oyd’s cross-claims for wrongful termination and retaliation are not supported by substantial evidence upon which a jury could base a verdict in favor of Floyd . Accordingly, the Final Order entered herein under date of May 15, 1997, is

AFFIRMED
.
**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**








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas America Public
#14-2004 L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the
Managing General Partner, 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 results of operations of the
      Partnership.








By:
    /s/
      Freddie M. Kotek


Name:
    Freddie
      M. Kotek


Title:
    Chief
      Executive Officer


Date:
    May
      16, 2005






15