alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marcell JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80SA130.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Dec. 22, 1980.

Dale Tooley, Dist. Atty., Brooke Wun-nicke, Chief Appellate Deputy Dist. Atty., Donald Eberle, Deputy Dist. Atty., Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

Donald A. Brenner, Denver, for defendant-appellee.

ERICKSON, Justice.

This interlocutory appeal by the prosecution is an outgrowth of an earlier interlocutory review of a suppression order in *People v. Johnson,*Colo., 605 P.2d 46 (1980). Upon remand for proceedings consistent with our decision in *People v. Johnson,*the court suppressed a revolver and scarf seized incident to the arrest and in plain view. In granting the defendant’s motion to suppress, the trial court relied upon *People v. Bannister,*Colo., 607 P.2d 987 (1980), as *725authority, and noted the absence of exigent circumstances to support the search which was justified under the plain view exception. Subsequent to the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress, the Supreme Court of the United States overruled *People v. Bannister, supra. Colorado v. Bannister,*- U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 42, 66 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980). *See People v. Bannister,*Colo., 619 P.2d 71 (1980).

In *People v. Bannister, supra,*we declared that while a plain view sighting of contraband or other evidence of a crime in an automobile may be sufficient to establish probable cause to obtain a warrant, the search of the automobile and the seizure of the evidence could not be carried out without a search warrant. The Supreme Court of the United States differed with our interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and declared that the decision in *Chambers v. Maroney,*399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970) and *Carroll v. United States,*267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), dictated an exception to the warrant requirement when an automobile is stopped and police have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.

Under the circumstances, the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress the scarf and revolver. Exigent circumstances are no longer necessary as a condition precedent to the seizure of evidence in an automobile when probable cause exists to arrest the occupant and the items are in plain view. *Colorado v. Bannister, supra. Compare, Coolidge v. New Hampshire,*403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) with *Arkansas v. Sanders,*442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979).

Accordingly, we reverse the order suppressing the scarf and revolver, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter Rodney BANNISTER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 79SA556.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Nov. 10, 1980.

Robert L. Russel, Dist. Atty., Thomas A. Barnes, Jr., Deputy Dist. Atty., Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert M. Moyers, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellee.

ERICKSON, Justice.

This case is again before us for proceedings not inconsistent with *Colorado v. Bannister,*— U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 42, 66 L.Ed.2d 142 (1980). In *People v. Bannister,*Colo., 607 P.2d 978 (1980), we suppressed evidence seized from Peter Rodney Bannister’s automobile in an attempt to comply with the directions contained in *Arkansas v. Sanders,*442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979).

The Supreme Court of the United States, in its reversal, determined that *Chambers v. Maroney,*399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970) and *Carroll v. United States,*267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), provided an exception to the warrant requirement when an automobile, is stopped and police have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime. *Compare, Coolidge v. New Hampshire,*403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) with *Arkansas v. Sanders, supra,*and *Cady v. Dombrowski,*413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973).

In *People*v. *Bannister, supra,*we held that while a plain view sighting of contraband, or other evidence of a crime in an automobile may be sufficient to establish probable cause to obtain a warrant, the search of the automobile, and the seizure of evidence, could not be carried out without a search warrant. This determination was in accordance with our holdings in *People v. Hicks,*197 Colo. 168, 590 P.2d 967 (1979); *People v. Hampton,*196 Colo. 466, 587 P.2d 275 (1978); *People v. Neyra,*189 Colo. 367, 540 P.2d 1077 (1975); and *People v. Railey,*

*72178 Colo. 297, 496 P.2d 1047 (1972). To the extent that those cases are inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in *Colorado*v. *Bannister, supra,*they are overruled.1

Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court and now reverse the ruling of the district court which suppressed the evidence seized from defendant, Peter Rodney Bannister’s automobile.

1

. We note that the holding of *Colorado*v. *Bannister, supra,*is consistent with our holdings in *People v. Coulson,*192 Colo. 53, 555 P.2d 516 (1976); *Atwood v. People,*176 Colo. 183, 489 P.2d 1305 (1971); *People v. Olson,*175 Colo. 140, 485 P.2d 891 (1971); and *People v. Clark,*173 Colo. 129, 476 P.2d 5649 (1970).
AMS Cooked Diced Chicken Contractor Indicator Organism Performance - Fiscal Year: 20201/,2/

Standard Plate Count3/ Total Coliforms4/ Generic E. coli5/ S. aureus6/

Contractor

# Sub-lots 

Produced 

(% of Total)

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

C1 805 (89.1) 4 0.50 1 0.12 0 0 0 0

C4 90 (10.1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.11

Total 895 (100.0) 4 0.45 1 0.11 0 0 1 0.11

1/A full description of the cooked diced chicken purchase program specification is available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/product-specs#chicken. 2/Production Dates: October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020.

3/Standard Plate Count Critical Limit: 1,000 CFU/g.

4/Total Coliforms Critical Limit: 50 CFU/g.

5/Generic E. coli Critical Limit: 10 CFU/g. 6/S. aureus Critical Limit: 10 CFU/g.
Exhibit 35.1





Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.








This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 12, 2022 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2022-4 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.  The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.





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





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





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








AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.





By:/s/ Connie CoffeyDated:March 4, 2024Connie CoffeyExecutive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
Número Identificador

RES2024__________

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico

TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

PANEL ESPECIAL

TERESITA C. RIERA CARRIÓN

Recurrida

v.

JUAN C. ALBORS LAHONGRAIS

 

Peticionario

KLCE202400896

Certiorari

procedente del

Tribunal de 

Primera 

Instancia, Sala 

de Bayamón

Caso Núm.

SJ2021CV03041

Sobre:

Liquidación de 

Comunidad de 

Bienes

Panel integrado por su presidente el Juez Bermúdez Torres, la Jueza 

Grana Martínez y la Jueza Santiago Calderón

RESOLUCIÓN

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 22 de agosto de 2024.

Considerado el Recurso de Certiorari, presentado por la parte 

peticionaria, Sr. Juan C. Albors Lahongrais, el 16 de agosto de 2024, 

denegamos su expedición. Regla 52.1 de Procedimiento Civil, 32 

LPRA Ap. V, R. 52.11.

Lo acordó el Tribunal y lo certifica la Secretaria del Tribunal 

de Apelaciones.

 Lcda. Lilia M. Oquendo Solís

 Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones

1 Dispone en lo aquí pertinente:

Al denegar la expedición de un recurso de certiorari en estos casos, el 

Tribunal de Apelaciones no tiene que fundamentar su decisión.
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT









|1. | I am a duly authorized officer of BMW Financial Services NA, LLC;
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | I have reviewed the terms of that certain Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 18, 2022 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, as seller, servicer (in such
            capacity, the “Servicer”), administrator and custodian, U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as indenture trustee, BMW FS Securities LLC, as depositor, and BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2022-A, as issuer, and I have made, or have caused to
            be made under my supervision, a review of the activities of the Servicer and the performance of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement during the period from May 18, 2022 to December 31, 2022; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|3. | to the best of my knowledge, based on the review described in paragraph 2 above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects during
            the period from May 18, 2022 to December 31, 2022.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:  March 28, 2023




By:  /s/ Ole
        Jensen


Name:  Ole Jensen


Title:  Vice
      President – Finance & Chief Financial Officer
1 of 2 

FARWELL COMMODITY AND GRAIN SERVICES

P.O. Box 12188 

 Casa Grande, AZ 85130 

 Phone: (520) 421-1027 

ALBERT SANTANA

OFFICIAL AGENCY MANAGER

EFFECTIVE DATE: JANUARY 1, 2024 

AMA INSPECTION FEES AND CHARGES FOR CALIFORNIA

Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) must approve all fees for official services and official 

agencies will assess only those fees appearing on their current approved fee schedule. 

REGULAR HOURS: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday except holidays. All other 

weekly hours, and Saturday will be considered overtime. Sunday and Holidays (Holidays include 

New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day) 

will be considered double time.

HOURLY RATES: $38.00 per hour per individual during regularly scheduled hours and $57.00 

per individual during overtime hours, assessed in quarter-hour increments. Overtime & double 

time will be assessed in addition to unit fees with a four-hour minimum for service performed on 

Saturday, Sunday, or Holidays. Travel time will be assessed at the applicable hourly rate for 

service with a one-hour minimum charge. If a holiday falls on Saturday, the previous Friday is a 

holiday. If a holiday falls on Sunday, the following Monday is a holiday. 

MILEAGE FEES: The IRS standard mileage rate will be assessed per mile for actual miles 

traveled. Any change to the mileage rate is effective when the IRS changes their 

standard mileage rate.

OFFICIAL SERVICES: Includes sampling EXCEPT as indicated. 

Commodity Cooperative Service Agreement Fees. In addition to all other 

applicable fees, commodity cooperative service agreement fees for 

commodity inspection services (pulses, hops, and miscellaneous 

processed commodities), excluding rice, will be assessed at the current 

percentage rate identified in FGIS Directive 9180.74 (Service Fees 

and Billing Codes, Attachment 4.) The assessed fees must exclude 

travel, mailing expenses, and state and local taxes. Invoices will 

identify assessed commodity cooperative service agreement fees as 

separate line items.
2 of 2 

AMA Rice Cooperative Service Agreement Fees. In addition to all other applicable fees, AMA 

rice cooperative service agreement fees for rice inspection services will be assessed at the current 

percentage rate identified in FGIS Directive 9180.74 (Service Fees and Billing Codes, 

Attachment 3.) The assessed fees must exclude travel, mailing expenses, and state and local 

taxes. Invoices will identify assessed AMA rice cooperative service agreement fees as separate 

line items.

SCHEDULE OF FEES- AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT SERVICES

Processed Commodity Inspection and Sanitation Inspections 

Phytosanitary inspection, per container plus hourly rate ...........................................$18.00 

SUBMITTED SAMPLES Inspection or Test

Beans, Dried Peas ,Lentils, etc. .................................................................................$20.00 

Rice

Milled-grade ..............................................................................................................$22.00 

Finance Charges of 10% (simple) apply 25 Days after Invoice Date
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41144 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE NATIVIDAD GONZALEZ-PARDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-746-ALL

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose

Natividad Gonzalez-Pardo (Gonzalez) has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gonzalez has received a copy of counsel’s

motion and brief, but he has not filed a response. Our review of

the brief filed by counsel and of the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave
No. 04-41144

-2-

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R.

42.2.
(4910-13-Pj

RIN 2120-AA64 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AnON Federal Aviation Administration 14CFR Part 39 

## 'fffJ~~ IDocket No. FAA-2009-*****j Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-218-AD]

<"J "'1 fi tif",U: j-.Vl'J -'..,Iv \ i Ainvorthincss Directivesj Airbus Model AJ30-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, ~302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 Series Airplanes, Model A340-211, -212,- 213, -311,
-J 12,and
-313 Series Airplanes, and Model -A340-54I and -642 Airplane-s AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUl\'lMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing air'\\iorthiness information (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority ofanother country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the tU1safe condition as: NGS\".IIlO~ I 

# -1 rNl11l1l.,SIG 

## (.cL-

, ! I""" (.1"1,/,"'7 KmmN~ SHIIKJI,

This condition, ifnot corrected, could lead to an air leak, resulting in incorrect total pressure measurement and consequent erroneous Calibrated Airspeed (CAS)/MACH parameters delivered by the Air Data Computer (ADC). Several reports have recently been received ofloose pneumatic quick-disconnect unions on Goodrich pitot probes PIN (part number) 0851HL. These may bethe result ofmis-torque ofthe affected unions atequipment manufacturing level. lnvcstigations are stilt on-going to determine the root cause(s).



# • • • • • 

# • • NJn"'-I>':;I(; !/..},il '-1'•• i,'. ",r~



### .") .'2(:/«/' ,-; -VI.- r,-c.SY>rOOI. 

## -IOD 

# ~'l6'~ hr"\w>; " 12 b

# 01

- /0/ ~1"Ar.s.'$lU /~ /' 

## ,-' Loss or fluctuation of indicated airspeed could result inproviding misleading informatiOl /'
3/16/2011 Page 1 of 3



### POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT This report based on Post-Focus Draft Revision 1 of the Test Data Review Engineering Report dated 3/9/2011. Chemical ID: P-10-0452 Reviewer: Flessner/BC

Results Table: Dose, Concentration, and Days Exceeded Results Summary

Exposure Scenario 1 Water Landfill Stack Air Fugitive Air

Drinking Water Fish Ingestion ADR LADD ADR LADD 7Q10 4 CC =

98 PDM Days Exceede d LADD ADR LADD ADR LADD

Release activity(ies) 2
; exposure calculation(s) 3 mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day μg/l # Days mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day

MFG: max acute eco

1 Exposure scenario titles consist of release activity followed by exposure calculation abbreviation. 2 Release activities are from engineering report's Manufact uring (Mfg), Processing (Proc) and Use release activity labels. Multiple release activities are combined in one exposu re scenario if their releases occur at same location. 3 Exposure calculations are Acute Dose Rate (ADR), Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD), and Probabilistic Dilution Model (PDM). There may be one, two, or all three exposure calculations per exposure scenario. CC is the aquatic concentration of concern. 4 This column displays concentration values for the 7Q10 streamflow, which is defined as the average daily streamflow of the seven consecutive days of lowest flow within a ten year period.
Remarks:



### Fate test recommendations?: (default is NA)3/16/2011 Page 2 of 3

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-10-0452 Assessor: Sherer/SS
ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES
Scenario#:1 Number of Release Sites Release Activity: MFG: Max ADR Release Description: WATER LANDFILL Non-sludge/Sludge STACK FUGITIVE

Total Releases: (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Non-sludge/Sludge Release Days/yr:
Per Site Release: (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day)

Remarks:3/16/2011 Page 3 of 3

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-10-0452
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 Quarterly Report of China Unistone Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006
(the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I James Preissler, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the
Company.

By: /s/ James Preissler                                      Dated: May 22, 2006
    -------------------------------------
    James Preissler
    Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
    (Principal Executive and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


                                       22
CCC COMMODITY INVENTORY

As of December 31, 2020

(Million Units Except as Noted) OUTSTANDING UNDER LOAN CCC-OWNED

CY 2019 CY 2020 INVENTORY 2/

(Actual Units)

BUTTER (LB) - - 0.0

CHEESE (LB) - - 0.0

NONFAT DRY MILK (LB) - - 0.0

BARLEY (BU) 0.3 5.3 0.0

CORN (BU) 31.2 436.5 0.0

OATS (BU) 0.1 0.7 0.0

SORGHUM (BU) 0.2 0.7 0.0

SOYBEANS (BU) 4.7 60.8 0.0

WHEAT (BU) 4.2 31.0 0.0

RICE (CWT) 0.2 32.1 0.0

REFINED SUGAR (Mil. Lbs.) 130.0 696.0 0.0

 IN-PROCESS BEET 0.0 745.5 0.0

RAW CANE SUGAR (Mil. Lbs.) 0.0 829.5 0.0

 IN-PROCESS CANE 0.0 0.0 0.0

HONEY (Mil. Lbs.) 0.8 4.6 0.0

PEANUTS (tons) 9,750.0 1,820,500.0 0.00

CANOLA SEED (CWT) 1/ 57.0 433.0 0.0

CRAMBE (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0

FLAXSEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 22.0 0.0

MUSTARD SEED (CWT) 1/ 1.0 7.0 0.0

RAPESEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0

SAFFLOWER SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 7.0 0.0

SESAME SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0

SUNFLOWER SEED (OIL) (CWT) 1/ 23.0 418.0 0.0

SUNFLOWER SEED (Other) (CWT) 1/ 2.0 33.0 0.0

DRY PEAS (CWT) 1/ 59.0 504.0 0.0

LENTILS (CWT) 1/ 0.0 106.0 0.0

CHICKPEAS (CWT) 1/ 44.0 42.0 0.0

UPLAND COTTON (BALE) 37,300.0 5,309,900.0 108.0

ELS COTTON (BALE) 15,400.0 156,600.0 0.0

1/ Minor Oilseeds & Pulses are in thousand units.

2/ CCC acquired 2019 Crop Year upland cotton as follows: 

12 bales from August 2020; 59 bales from September 2020; 120 bales from October; and 135 Upland, 351 ELS bales 

from November maturing loans.

Following were multiple invitations that sold 12 bales in September, 59 bales in October, 77 bales in November, and

421 bales in December. 

In total, there were 108 bales of upland cotton in inventory on December 31, 2020.

CCC also acquired 2019 Crop Year peanuts as follows: 

20.55 tons maturing loans from September 2020, and 39.77 tons from October 2020. 

Total CCC peanut forfeitures for Crop Year 2019 were 60.32 tons. CCC sold 20.55 tons from 

Invitation 20, and 39.77 tons from Invitation 21. 

This brought the total CCC peanut inventory to 0.00 tons as of December 31, 2020. 

Report Completed: February 5, 2021