alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Donald Wayne BUTCHER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 17915.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 24, 1982.

David C. Biggs, Salt Lake Legal Defenders Ass’n, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a jury verdict, convicting defendant of burglary, in violation of U.C.A. 76-6-202(1).

The only issue urged on appeal is the alleged violation of defendant’s right to be present and defend in person at his trial, *1392under Art. I, Sec. 12, Utah Constitution and U.C.A. 77-l-6(l)(a) (1981 Supp.). Defendant was physically present at trial, but contends that he was not sufficiently alert to assist counsel in his own defense. This, he claims, was the result of the administration of an unknown dosage of a tranquilizer drug, Thorazine.

The record indicates that at a pre-trial competency hearing, defendant’s counsel approached the trial judge and expressed concern over defendant’s disruptive behavior and indicated that he had not received his dosage of Thorazine that morning. The judge later telephoned a doctor at the Utah State Hospital, where defendant was undergoing treatment. The doctor vouched for the defendant’s competence to attend and defend himself at trial. The doctor did indicate, however, that if defendant had not had his Thorazine, it might affect his threshold of excitability. The trial court asked the doctor to order the necessary medication, which was administered during the noon hour. The court concluded that defendant was competent to stand trial.

The conclusions of the trial judge and the attending physician as to defendant’s competence were amply supported when counsel called the defendant to testify at trial. The defendant admitted an alcohol problem of long-standing, punctuated by a previous burglary conviction and other infractions leading to a number of charges. He insisted on answering incriminating questions about the incident in question by claiming loss of memory resulting from excessive drinking. However, he was lucid as to the time and amount of liquor he had consumed, the places where he had been drinking and his associates, that he had broken a window, and pedalled a bicycle to and from his motel.

The jury apparently had no difficulty with his testimony, and after weighing it with other testimony, including his being found hiding at the scene of the offense, the jury deliberated fifty minutes and found him guilty.

The correctness of principles stated in the authorities cited by defendant are not in question, and they are inapposite, for the reason that there was ample evidence in the instant case to conclude that defendant was competent to appear in person and by counsel, to defend himself. In such event, the verdict and judgment are entitled to approval under the rules of appellate review.

Affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARVIN JEAN

- MICHEL
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1617

[ March 28, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Samantha Schosberg

Feuer , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 2009CF014593CMB, 2010CF000318AMB,

and 2010CF000501AMB

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jessica A. De Vera, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashle y B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER
, C.J., G ROS S and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
(logo) BERKADIA®

 

 

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 (the “Reporting Period”)

 

*KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,*

*Series 2022-B35*

 

Pursuant to Section 3.01 ofthe Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the “ServicingAgreement”), as an authorized officer of Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC (“Berkadia”),I hereby attest that:

 

        i.           A review of the activities andperformance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the period (reporting period) hasbeen made under my supervision.

 

      ii.           To the best of my knowledge, basedon such review, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in all materialrespects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughout theperiod and no default by the Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreement hasoccurred and is continuing.

 

 

Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC,

 

/s/ Mark E. McCool 

Mark E. McCool 

President 

February 20, 2024
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00277-CV

Juan Enriquez, Appellant

v.

The University of Texas System Board of Regents, James B. Milliken,

and Dr. Erin Jones, Appellees

FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-22-001835, THE HONORABLE MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was due on August 24, 2022. On September 6, 2022, this Court 

sent a notice to appellant informing him that his brief was overdue and that a failure to file a 

satisfactory response by September 16, 2022, would result in the dismissal of this appeal for 

want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: September 27. 2022
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 24 - 0 18 2

_________________ MONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS and SAMUEL DICKMAN, M.D.,

Petitioners, v. AUSTIN MILES KNUDSEN, in his official capacity as MONTANA ATTORNEY GENERAL; and CHRISTI JACOBSEN, in her official Capacity as MONTANA SECRETARY OF STATE,

Respondents. O R D E R

_________________ Petitioners Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights and Samuel Dickman, M.D. (MSRR), seek declaratory judgment on original jurisdiction under M. R. App. P. 14(4). Petitioners argue they are entitled to declaratory judgment that declares: (1) the Attorney General’s proposed ballot statement for Constitutional Issue 14 (CI- 14) is argumentative, prejudicial, and inaccurate under § 13 - 27 - 212(1), MCA ; and (2 ) MSRR’s proposed ballot statement is clear and impartial and the Attorney General should have approved it under § 13 -27 -226(3)(c), MCA . M SRR further asks the Court to directly certify its ballot statement to the Montana Secretary of State immediately upon this Court’s decision on this matter. MSRR further requests expedited review of this matter so that it may commence signature gathering as soon as possible. Having reviewed the Petition, this Court deems it appropriate to obtain a summary response. Therefore, in accordance with M. R. App. P. 14(7), IT IS ORDERED that Respondents are granted until the close of business on Friday, March 29 , 2024 , to prepare, file, and serve a response(s) to the petition for declaratory judgment on original jurisdiction . The Clerk is directed to provide notice of this Order to counsel for all parties. Electronically signed by: Ingrid Gustafson Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 26 2024

03/26/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0182
(a)  A
        review of Toyota Motor Credit Corporation’s activities and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 16, 2022 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Toyota Auto Finance Receivables LLC, as seller, Toyota
        Motor Credit Corporation, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”) and sponsor, and Toyota Auto Receivables 2022-C Owner Trust, as issuer, during the year ended December 31, 2023 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 Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
    /s/ James Schofield
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-1089 (Review)]

## Determination

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain orange juice from Brazil would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

                    The Commission instituted this review on February 1, 2011 (76 FR 5822, February 2, 2011) and determined on May 9, 2011 that it would conduct a full review (76 FR 30197, May 24, 2011). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 14, 2011 (76 FR 43344, July 20, 2012). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on January 24, 2012, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.                

                    The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on April 9, 2012. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4311 (April 2012), entitled                     *Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Investigation No. 731-TA-1089 (Review).*

 Issued: April 10, 2012.

By order of the Commission.

James R. Holbein,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2012-8898 Filed 4-12-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40634 Conference Calendar

TOMMY E. SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus J. E. ALFORD, Warden; PATRICIA ADAMS, Property Room Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:99-CV-194

- - - - - - - - - - December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Tommy E. Sanders, a Texas prisoner (# 744097), appeals from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Sanders alleged that the defendants confiscated from him an $8.95 “multi-outlet plug” he had purchased at the commissary of his previous prison. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Sanders had failed to state a cognizable constitutional claim regarding the deprivationNo. 00-40634 -2- of his property because Texas provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy. See Berry v. Brady , 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999); Murphy v. Collins , 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal and the dismissal as frivolous by the district court each count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Sanders that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
**
Exhibit 35.1 

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such officer, as follows: 

(1)The undersigned has caused areview of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the period February 23, 2022 through March 31, 2022 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, datedas of February 23, 2022 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Company LLC II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2022-A OwnerTrust, to be conducted under his supervision; and 

(2)To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Companyhas fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’sCertificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to suchterms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the27th day of June, 2022. 

 

/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 
20 

**
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 Annual Report of Generation Asia I Acquisition Limited, (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I certify, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

 

Date: March 30, 2022                                                    By:  /s/ Roy Kuan                                                           .

Name: Roy Kuan

                                                                                                Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

                                                                                                (Principal Executive Officer)

 

----
# Cost Estimate

&"Times New Roman,Bold"&14&G	&"Times New Roman,Bold"&14USDA Audit Cost Estimate	

&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12Attachment II - Remote Audit July 2020	Page &P	USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

# image1.jpeg
#### FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, Appellant, v. Richard UNDERWOOD d/b/a Alaska Feed Co., Appellee.

No. 4927.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

April 3, 1981.

Terrence H. Thorgaard, Asst. Borough Atty., Fairbanks, for appellant.

Irwin Ravin, Fairbanks, for appellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ., and DIMOND, Senior Justice.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

A section of the Code of Ordinances of the Fairbanks North Star Borough provides that businesses shall keep suitable records of all sales in order to determine the amount of sales taxes for which they are liable, and provides that these records shall be open for examination by borough officials.1 The sole question presented on this appeal is whether a civil action may be maintained under this ordinance to compel a business to open its records for an audit by borough officials. We conclude that such an action is permissible and therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court of September 7, 1979.

No question is raised as to whether such documents might be privileged under the federal or state constitution and we intimate no view on that topic.

The judgment is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

1

. The section is FNSB 3.48.140(A):

> *Record keeping duty*— Investigation. A. It shall be the duty of every seller engaged or continuing in business in the borough to keep and preserve suitable records of all sales made by him, and such other books or accounts as may be necessary to determine the amount of tax for the collection of which he is liable hereunder. It shall be the duty of every such person to keep and preserve a period of three years all invoices of goods and merchandise purchased for resale, and all such books, invoices and other records as may be necessary, all of which shall be open for examination at any reasonable time by the mayor or his duly authorized agents.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1712** 
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, Jr., a/k/a William Scott Davis, II and a minor child JFD, as next best friend , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News
. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 4:13

- cv - 00062

- RBS

- DEM )

Submitted : July 18, 2013 Decided: July 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
William Scott Davis, II , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the d istrict court ’ s order dismiss ing of his Federal Tort Claims Act complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. United States , No. 4:13

- cv - 00062

- RBS

- DEM (E.D. Va. May 21, 2013)
. We deny Davis’ motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

I, Mike McKeever, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this reporton Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-P4 (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 amaterial 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 providedunder 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(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed inthe Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of thereports 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 inaccordance 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 asotherwise 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: Computershare Trust Company,National Association. 

Date: March 25, 2022 

 

/s/ Mike McKeever
Mike McKeeverPresidentCarvana Receivables Depositor LLC(senior officer in charge of securitization)**
[No. 36123-6-I.

Division One.

July 22, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. C.S., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Skag-it County, No. 94-8-00106-4, Susan Cook, Commissioner, entered January 31, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

I, Mike McKeever, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this reporton Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-N4 (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 amaterial 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 providedunder 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(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed inthe Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of thereports 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 inaccordance 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 asotherwise 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: Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation and Computershare Trust Company, National Association. 

 
Date: March 25, 2022
/s/ Mike McKeever

Mike McKeever

President

Carvana Receivables Depositor LLC

(senior officer in charge of securitization)
**
*[No.*34923-6-I.

Division One.

July 29, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Orlando Cepedo Alexander, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 93-1-04109-4, Robert H. Alsdorf, J., entered July 8, 1994. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Baker, C.J., concurred in by Agid and Ellington, JJ.