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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cellu Tissue
Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the three and six months ended August 26, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certifies 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 Registrants.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/S/ RUSSELL C. TAYLOR                
|Russell C. Taylor                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|October 8, 2010
Motion Carried with the Case; Order filed April 7, 2015. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00899-CV

NO. 14-14-00932-CV

____________

MAYOR ANNISE PARKER AND CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellants

V.

JACK PIDGEON AND LARRY HICKS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 310th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-61812

ORDER

On March 20, 2015, appellants filed a motion to strike the appendix and 

portions of the brief filed by appellees on March 16, 2015. The motion to strike is 

carried with the case. The parties are invited to file one supplemental brief per side, 

not to exceed 5,000 words per side, addressing the following cases: (1) No. 14-556 

Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-562 Tanco v. Haslam, No. 14-571 DeBoer v. Snyder, 

and No. 14-574 Bourke v. Beshear, all pending in the Supreme Court of the United 
States; and (2) No. 14-50196 De Leon v. Perry, pending in the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The supplemental briefs shall be filed no later than 

July 15, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, McCally, and Donovan.
Opinion issued April 9, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00494-CR

———————————

AYUNWI MEME FUH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court 

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1354773

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant Ayunwi Meme Fuh of the offense of sexual 

assault of a child under seventeen years of age and assessed punishment at two 
2

years’ confinement in TDCJ. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.011(a)(2)(A), 12.33

(West 2011). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, 

along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal 

is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 

1396 (1967).

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal 

authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 

807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly 

reviewed the record and he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant 

reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 

S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we 

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds 

for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 

1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full 

examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 

300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine 

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 
3

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing 

court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We 

note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds 

for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw.1 Attorney Don R. Cantrell must immediately send appellant the 

required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 6.5(c). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal 

and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1997).
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

April 07, 2015

Hon. Anne Lorentzen

District Clerk

901 Leopard, Suite 313

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-14-00652-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 09CR5089-2

Style: The State Of Texas v. Glenn Wrightman

The judgment of the trial court was DISMISSED-WANT OF JURISDICTION by this Court 

on the 22nd day of January, 2015. The mandate is enclosed.

Tex R. App. P. 51.2(a)(1) provides that the clerk of the trial court shall send an 

acknowledgment to the clerk of the appellate court of the receipt of the mandate. Please review 

the requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 51.2(b) regarding the issuance of a capias in cases in which 

the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and the defendant is not in custody.

Please sign the attached acknowledgment of receipt of the mandate and submit through 

the TAMES Records Submission Portal (RSP) as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.

cc: Hon. Mark Skurka (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Jacqueline A. Del Llano Chapa (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

I hereby acknowledge receipt of the mandate in cause no. 13-14-00652-CR this 

________ day of _________________, 2015.

District/County Clerk, 

By :____________________________
i..,f l/ "·- ! ilnitcd ~tatrs ~rnatc /' \! ~ i __ _ .

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

Department ofT ransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

June 8, 2012 

The Department of Transportation is currently evaluating an application from 

Casper/Natrona County International Airport for a proposed Small Community Air 

Service Development Program Grant. We urge you to give full and fair consideration to 

this application. 

If awarded, the funding from the grant and the local funding will be directed into three 

projects: (1) Development of a Marketing Plan; (2) Advertising and public relations 

program to support the AHegiant Airlines current air service to Las Vegas, the new Delta 

Connection CRJ service to Salt Lake City, and the additional United Express flight to 

Denver; and (3) Advertising and public relations program to support the new Allegiant 

Airlines service to Phoenix/Mesa Airport 

Thank you for your attention to this letter. Please include it in the official record of the 

case. We look forward to learning of the decision reached in this matter. 

Michael B. Enzi 

United States Senator 

510-120621-010 

John Barrasso, M.D. 

United States Senator 

!• -. • 

: ;i 

18
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, CoreyHenry, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2022-3(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

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

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

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included inthis report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed 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: Citibank,N.A. 

 
By: 
/s/ Corey Henry
Name: Corey HenryTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date: March 31, 2023**
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 21156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8419]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public 
comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the 
Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 23, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Gilbert at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(515) 564-6638.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be held Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 2 p.m. Eastern Time via 
teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Notification of intent to 
participate must be made with Susan Gilbert. For more information 
please contact Ms. Gilbert at 1-888-912-1227 or (515) 564-6638 or 
write: TAP Office, 210 Walnut Street, Stop 5115, Des Moines, IA 50309 
or contact us at the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS topics.

    Dated: March 28, 2012.
Louis Morizio,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2012-8419 Filed 4-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage                     *de novo,*                     or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y                           ( print page 21101)                        (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 24, 2012.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:

                    1.                     *City Holding Company,*                     Cross Lanes, West Virginia; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Virginia Savings Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Virginia Savings Bank, F.S.B., both in Front Royal, Virginia, and thereby engage in operating a savings and loan association, pursuant to section 225.28(4)(ii).                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 4, 2012.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2012-8480 Filed 4-6-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
-88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

 30

 32

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

05/31

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.48 N 77.37 W Meters AGL
# C_2004106EN.01002402.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/24

---

Action brought on 27 February 2004 by the Kingdom of Sweden against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-102/04)

(2004/C 106/43)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 February 2004 by the Kingdom of Sweden, represented by A. Kruse, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Sweden.

The Kingdom of Sweden claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Directive 2003/112/EC (1) of 1 December 2003 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) to include paraquat as an active substance, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Directive 2003/112/EC (1) of 1 December 2003 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) to include paraquat as an active substance,

1

2

| — | order the Commission to pay the Kingdom of Sweden's costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the Kingdom of Sweden's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission adopted Directive 2003/112/EC on 1 December 2003. By that directive, paraquat was included as an active substance in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

By adopting the directive the Commission has disregarded Articles 6 and 174 EC, Article 5 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

In adopting the directive the Commission has clearly gone beyond the limits of its discretionary powers in that it has failed to apply the principle of caution when assessing and dealing with the risk posed by paraquat both to human and to animal health. Its failure to apply the principle of caution has in turn made it impossible to ensure the high level of protection required by the EC Treaty and in Directive 91/414/EEC. In disregarding the need for a high level of protection, the Commission must also be considered not to have fulfilled the requirements of environmental protection and the principle of integration laid down in the EC Treaty. The Commission has thus breached Articles 6 and 174(2) EC and Article 5 of Directive 91/414/EEC. The Commission has also mishandled this matter by failing to have regard for available published data on paraquat and the risks associated with that substance. In so doing it has breached Articles 174(3) EC and Article 5(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92.

---

(1)  OJ L 321, 6.12.2003, p. 32.

1

(2)  OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

2

---
[On Letterhead of Collaborating Organization]

# COLLABORATOR ORGANIZATION LETTER

[Name of Authorized Organizational Representative /Applicant]

[Applicant Organization]

[City, State]

Dear [Project Director]:

[Short introduction describing collaborating organization’s mission and how its applicable to the proposed project.]

We anticipate participating in and supporting the [Current Year] [Project Title] in the following way(s):

	Short description of services to be provided with an estimated time period

	Very brief overview of key roles and personnel to be involved, if known

	Estimate of the funding the organization will be provided for the services, if possible

The individuals and our organization agree to abide by the management plan contained in the application. 

Sincerely,

[Signature of Collaborating Organization’s Authorized Representative (AR)]

Printed Name of AR 

AR’s Title (e.g., Executive Director)

Address and telephone number if that information is not already on the letterhead
### NUMBER 13 - 18 - 00 535 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN R E JESUS RODRIGUEZ AGUERO, M.D., DECEASED

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras 1
R elator Jesus Rodriguez Aguero, M.D., deceased, f iled a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on September 25, 2018

. Through this original pro ceeding, relator seeks t o compel the trial court to vacate its “Order Transferring Proceeding to a Statutory Probate Court Pursuant to Section 34.001 of the Texas Estates Code.” See
T EX

. E ST

. C ODE A NN

. § 34.001 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). We deny relief. To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying order is void or a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists.

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47. 4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am ., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceedin g); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer

, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court ’ s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable o r is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. , 494 S.W.3d at 712; Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia , 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing th e benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co ., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d at 136. Mandamus is appropriate when a probate court transfers a case to itself without statutory authority, as alleged here, on grounds that it has actively interfered with an other court's jurisdiction

. In re Reliant Energy, Inc. , 159 S.W.3d 624, 626 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re SWEPI, L.P. , 85 S.W.3d 800, 809 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding); In re Estate of Aguilar , 435 S.W.3d 831, 833 (Tex. App.

— San Anto nio 2014, orig. proceeding ) ; see also In re Mares , No. 13

- 15

- 00549

- CV, 2016 WL 362783, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Corpu s Christi Jan. 28, 2016, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op .). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by Charlotte and Bruce Philbrick, the reply, the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has failed to meet his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

. DORI CONTRERAS Justice
D elivered and filed the 26th day of November , 201 8

.
# C_2004094EN.01003303.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/33

---

Removal from the register of Case C-246/01 (1)

1

(2004/C 94/76)

By order of 20 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-246/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

---

(1)  OJ C 245 of 1.09.2001.

1

---