alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.3

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 Solo Cup Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Susan H. Marks, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Susan H. Marks     
|Susan H. Marks         
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 16, 2006
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 

Seattle, WA 98101-3140 

OFFICE OF 

AIR, WASTE, AND TOXICS 

July 15, 2013 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Final Review: “SIP Revision for the Thurston County, Washington Second 10-

Year Limited Maintenance Plan for PM10” 

FROM: Jeff Hunt, Air Quality Planner <signed> 

TO: Debra Suzuki, Unit Manager 

 Air Programs Unit 

In a letter dated April 5, 2013, from Kate Kelly, Director of the EPA Region 10 Office of Air, 

Waste, and Toxics, the EPA stated: 

We have reviewed the draft “SIP Revision for the Thurston County, Washington 

Second 10-Year Limited Maintenance Plan for PM10” to identify potential 

deficiencies prior to your local and state public comment process. When 

compared with current EPA policy and requirements, we have concluded that the 

draft version last revised March 6, 2013, would likely be approvable into the 

Washington State Implementation Plan. However, the EPA will make a final 

decision based on our review of the complete State Implementation Plan that is 

submitted following your public process and after consideration of any comments 

we receive as part of the Environmental Protection Agency public process. 

On July 1, 2013, the EPA received a final version of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Department of Ecology (Ecology). Ecology received no public 

comments on the SIP revision. Nor did Ecology make substantive changes to the SIP revision 

since the EPA’s April review, aside from minor clarifications. Lastly, the EPA made no policy 

changes with respect to limited maintenance plans or course particulate matter (PM10) since our 

April review. I have completed my review of Ecology’s final SIP submission and recommend 

publishing a proposed approval based on the sample Federal Register notice drafted as part of the 

EPA’s April review.
OESE Response to the Comment Received During the 60-day notice period:

Thank you for your comments on the collection. We have read them and appreciate your 

submission.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6912** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. KEITH DARNELL MCNEILL, a/k/a No Doubt , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Cou rt for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News . Henry Coke Morgan, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 4:08

- cr - 00012

- HCM

- FBS

- 1; 4:11

- cv - 00096

- HCM )

Submitted : December 20, 2011 Decided: December 22, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Ju dges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Keith Darnell McNeill, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Keith Darnell McNeill seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabi lity. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McNeill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Karen M. NOLTE, Appellant, v. Everett E. NOLTE, Appellee.

No. 88-02364.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 14, 1989.

*1147Raymond A. Alley, Jr., and Elizabeth S. Wheeler, of Raymond A. Alley, Jr., P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Ellis R. Faught, Jr. of Ellis R. Faught, Jr., P.A., Brandon, for appellee.

FRANK, Judge.

Karen Nolte, the former wife, appeals from the denial of her motions to increase support for the minor daughter, Christina, to enforce the payment of child support on behalf of a son, Chad, and the award of an attorney’s fee.

Essential to a determination of whether the former husband’s support of Christina should be increased is a finding of a substantial change of circumstances, including the financial condition, of one or both parents. *Lacy v. Lacy,*413 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). A heavier burden is borne by the party seeking modification where, as here, the child support agreement is incorporated in the final judgment. *Id.; contra, Bernstein v. Bernstein,*498 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The record discloses that at the time of dissolution, the former husband was earning approximately $42,000. In 1987, however, his earnings exceeded $100,000, a marked improvement in his financial status over that which existed at the time of the final judgment. That fact, coupled with Karen’s testimony that Christina s needs have increased in the years following dissolution, requires reversal of the trial court’s order and justifies the enlargement of Christina’s support provided for in the final judgment.

Karen disputes that portion of the trial court's order relieving the former husband from the support obligation associated with Chad. Karen had legal custody of Chad, but ordered him from her residence on July 19, 1986 and he immediately began living with the former husband. A trial court may refuse to enforce past due child support under exceptions involving “laches, estoppel, waiver, reprehensible conduct upon the part of the parent having custody or other strong equitable reasons.” *Panganiban v. Panganiban,*396 So.2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). We view Chad’s expulsion from Karen’s home as a legitimate equitable reason warranting the former husband’s cessation of payments. This situation is distinguishable from settings, for example, where the child, for non-compelling reasons, temporarily lives with the non-custodial parent. *See Raybuck v. Raybuck,*451 So.2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Thus, the former husband’s unilateral termination of support payments was not offensive to the final judgment or his duty to assist in the maintenance of Chad.

The last point raised by Karen stems from the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees she incurred in the post judgment proceeding. We agree with Karen that given the disparity in the parties’ incomes and despite the fact that she did not prevail below, the award of a reasonable fee was in order. *Reid v. Reid,*396 So.2d 818, 821 (Fla. 4th DCA), *rev. denied,*402 So.2d 612 (Fla.1981).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Artcraft
III Inc. for the quarter ending August 31, 2004, I, Scott Raleigh, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Artcraft III Inc. hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-KSB for the quarter ending August 31,
          2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the quarter ending August 31, 2004, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Artcraft III Inc.

Dated:  October 8, 2004

ARTCRAFT III INC.


By: /s/ Scott Raleigh
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2021-3 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofNovember 17, 2021, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2021-3 and Wilmington Trust, National Association (the “Agreement”)during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: /s/ Marc WomackName: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2023
 
By: /s/ Vikas GuptaName: Vikas GuptaTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2023**
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 103 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 103

 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
                  respect to the Pledge of Allegiance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 27, 2002

Mr. Green of Texas introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
                  respect to the Pledge of Allegiance.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Nothing in the first amendment to this Constitution shall be 
construed to prohibit the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as 
follows: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, 
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 Rand Logistics, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2008 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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, as amended; 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:
      August 14, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Laurence S.
      LevyLaurence S.
      LevyChairman
      of the Board and
                Chief
      Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 33.1





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIAFOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES





Entergy Texas, Inc. (the “Servicer”), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:





(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Transition Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), 2(iii) (advances or guarantees), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), (4)(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust for an obligor), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), and (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);





(2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;





(3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2022, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and





(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2022, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.











---




Date:  March 24, 2023





Entergy Texas, Inc., as servicer


By /s/ Barrett E. Green


Name:  Barrett E. Green


Title:   Vice President and Treasurer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Princely Treasures: European Masterpieces 1600-1800 from the Victoria and Albert Museum,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Oklahoma City Museum of Art, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma from on or about February 16, 2012, until on or about May 13, 2012, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

      ( print page 2603)    
Dated: January 11, 2012. 

J. Adam Ereli,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2012-868 Filed 1-17-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7607
ROBERT LEWIS JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. William M. Catoe, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-3104-6-3AK) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lewis Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint without prejudice. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that reliefbe denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite thiswarning, Appellant failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
B .d.-<t: ="'­r1 gecrest'  1720 W. Rio Salado Parkway-Tempe, AZ-85281 (602} 852�ooj  Bridgecrest Credit Company  OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE  The undersigned hereby certifies that he is a duly authorized officer of Bridgecrest Credit  Company (the "Servicer"), and that as such he is authorized to execute and deliver this certificate  in the name and on behalf of Bridgecrest Credit Company, and certifies that:  1. I have reviewed the activities of the Servicer during the period January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022 and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement; and 2. to the best of my knowledge, based on such review and other than described herein, the Servicer has substantially fulfilled all its obligations under the Servicing Agreement for the above referenced period. This certificate is delivered in accordance with Section 2.9 of the Carvana Auto Receivables 2021- P4 Servicing Agreement dated as of December 29, 2021, among Carvana Auto Receivables Trust  2021-P4, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Bridgecrest Credit Company. This  certificate is dated as of December 31, 2022.  By:-------------- Daniel Gaudreau  Chief Financial Officer  /s/ Daniel Gaudreau Exhibit 35.1